Bridging the Organizational Divide: To w a rd a Comprehensive A … · 2014-03-03 · Bridging the...

Fall 2001

Bridging the Organizational Divide:To w a rd a Comprehensive A p p roach to the Digital Divide

A PolicyLink Report

Bridging the Organizational Divide:To w a rd a Comprehensive A p p roach to the Digital Divide

A PolicyLink Report

Zita D’Azalia Allen Janet Dewart BellJudith BellAngela Glover BlackwellJoe Brooks

Victor RubinLisa ServonAnton Spevacek

PolicyLink Technology Team

Principal Authors

Josh KirschenbaumRadhika Kunamneni

All Rights Reserved. Copyright ©2001 PolicyLink

Bridging the Organizational Divide

PolicyLink National Office:101 BroadwayOakland, CA 94607Tel: 510/663-2333 Fax: 510/663-9684

Communications Office:1350 Broadway, Suite 1901New York, NY 10018Tel: 212/629-9570 Fax: 212/629-7328

www.policylink.org

Contents

Preface

1Introduction and Overview

2Moving Beyond Access: Addressing the Organizational Divide

3Challenges and Opportunities Facing Community Based Organizations

4Promising Practices: Making Use of Relevant Content and Applications

5Next Steps: A Comprehensive Policy Approach to theDigital Divide

Appendix A:Technology Technical Assistance Providers & Case Study Examples

Appendix B:References

Bridging the Organizational DivideContents

5

6

8

10

14

25

29

30

PolicyLink is a national nonprofit, research,communications, capacity building, and advocacyorganization advancing a new generation of policiesto achieve economic and social equity and buildstrong organized communities. Our work is guidedby the wisdom, voice, and experience of localpractitioners developing innovative solutions to ournation’s most pressing problems. Connectingconstituencies to promising practices and policycreation that builds lasting results and systemschange, PolicyLink projects promote equitabledevelopment and reverse the unfair effects of urbansprawl, secure dollars for community reinvestment,foster community participation in health care programs,train the next generation of community builders,and promote community-centered policing.


4

Preface

These community leaders are our national leaders.This report is a reflection of the field, and an effortto push it forward to new places with greatersynergy and policy impact. We would like to thankthese leaders and the many practitioners fromaround the country that kindly shared their timeand insights with us. Their innovations are thefoundation for a future community technologypolicy agenda; one that includes: (1) promotion ofuniversal access and training; (2) technology capacitybuilding for community based organizations; (3) creation of community-driven content; and (4) development of IT applications.

Special thanks go to the report’s authors JoshKirschenbaum and Radhika Kunamneni and thetechnology team at PolicyLink. Special acknow-ledgement goes to Vice President Judith Bell for herkeen insight, strong leadership and tireless supportof this work.

Angela Glover BlackwellPresident

Ours is a society and economy increasingly relianton information technology. PolicyLink has worked tounderstand the impact these technologicaltransformations have on low-income communities,with two key questions guiding our efforts. First,how might existing and emerging technologies beused as a tool to support community-buildingefforts? Second, can we draw from the decades ofexperience in the community-building field toinform current efforts to bridge the digital divide,the newest manifestation of inequity?

The answers to these questions lie at the intersectionbetween the community building and communitytechnology movements, one of the most inspiringand creative places in the social equity field. In thisspace lies the potential of linking the legacy andpower of the social justice field to the promise ofcutting-edge technological innovations. During thelast year, we have been awed by the passion andenthusiasm of pioneer community organizations,community technology centers (CTCs), and technicalassistance groups, each of whom is using informationtechnology to enhance community building efforts.

Bridging the Organizational DividePreface

5


6

Information technology (IT) is rapidly transformingour economy and society. It is changing how we liveand work. IT has the ability to generate greatwealth and prosperity, but it can also exacerbateeconomic disparity and magnify existing inequities.Many low-income communities are isolated fromrecent technological advances and do not haveaccess to personal computers, the Internet, and theinteractions and opportunities these technologiesprovide. This experience currently defines the so-called “digital divide”- that space between thosewho do and those who do not have access toinformation technology.

Policymakers, community activists, and IT industryleaders quickly responded to the digital divide bycreating policies and programs that provide low-income residents with training and access toinformation technologies. But, training and accessleave a key policy question unanswered:“Technology access for what purpose?” IT is apowerful tool that can be used to promote equityand strengthen community institutions andinfrastructure. PolicyLink believes the digital dividepolicy dialogue must go beyond the current access-centered paradigm. The next steps for IT policy andpractice must support the creation of local content1

and build the technology capacity of communitybased organizations (CBOs).

Local content and technology capacity are closelyrelated. CBOs are rich storehouses of localinformation, but they frequently lack the technologycapacity to either use this valuable resourcethemselves or to share it with other community-

Introduction andOverview

1

Bridging the Organizational DivideIntroduction and Overview

7

serving organizations. PolicyLink refers to this lack oftechnology capacity as the “organizational divide”and sees it as a key component of the digital divide.Building the technology capacity of CBOs enablesthem to generate relevant content online, build newapplications, and to use IT to help advance theirmissions and address pressing social problems. Webelieve that as digital divide policy also seeks tobridge the organizational divide, we will be buildinga more equitable society.

To support new policies for online contentdevelopment and building technology capacity,PolicyLink has identified an exemplary set of CBOsthat are using IT to support their work and extendtheir impact. These examples fall into six categories:

1) Advocacy and online organizing 2) Community information clearinghouse 3) Networking and online communities 4) Innovations in service delivery 5) Interactive database development6) Community mapping

This discussion of innovative uses of informationtechnology by community based organizations servesas a foundation for developing a comprehensive policyagenda for bridging the digital divide. That policyagenda should support four integrated components:technology access and training for individuals,technology capacity building for community basedorganizations, the expansion of relevant localcontent and the development of new applications.

This paper is organized in four sections: 1) background on the digital divide as context for

understanding the organizational divide, 2) challenges facing the use of technology by the

nonprofit sector and the available resources tobuild IT capacity,

3) promising practices using relevant content andapplications, and

4) a framework for developing a comprehensivepolicy agenda for addressing the digital divide.

After almost a decade of policies and resourcesdedicated to bridging the digital divide, much hasbeen accomplished and much remains to be done.A robust network of thousands of communitytechnology centers has been established as a resultof programs and policies initiated by federal, stateand local governments and philanthropy. The nationhas made great strides in providing the physicalcomponents (e.g., hardware, software, connectivity)for individual IT access. For example, Internet accessfor households increased from 20% in 1997 to 40%in 2000, according to the Department of Commerce’sFalling Through the Net series, which has documentedthis move towards digital inclusion.2

In the early 1990s, as IT became commonplace, thenotion of a digital divide became more of a realityfor low-income communities that lacked access totraining, computers, and the Internet. In response,policymakers set the bar high for the nation toachieve universal access to new technologies. Thisgoal quickly framed the digital divide as an issueprimarily focused on individuals as technology “haves”or “have-nots.”

While this framing addressed the issue of widespreadlack of access, it also inspired a relatively narrow setof solutions that, to date, have failed to address themultifaceted aspects of the digital divide, such asthe need for relevant content, information sharingand strengthening the community-basedinfrastructure with technology. Moving away fromtreating the digital divide as solely an issue oftechnology access, opens up the possibilities forusing IT’s power as a tool to strengthen low-incomecommunities.

Moving Beyond Access:Addressing theOrganizational Divide

2


8

In the past, social movements have worked tobridge the historic divides—of income, race andeducation—and to promote a more equitable anddemocratic society. Often, community basedorganizations, residents, activists, organizers, andeven social service providers have spearheadedthese efforts creating a vibrant infrastructure3 inmany underserved, low-income, low-wealthcommunities. If one goal of bridging the digitaldivide is to strengthen these neighborhoods usingthe power of IT, it is critical to understand theimportance of this existing infrastructure and itsconnection to local constituents. Communityorganizations are the gatekeepers of localinformation and are therefore the appropriateactors for creating local content that is relevant,useful and available online. These organizations andtheir resident constituency bases have the wisdom,knowledge and experience to use IT as a tool forbuilding social and economic equity, and strongorganized communities.

Although these local community based organizationsare repositories of information, they are technologydeficient. The robust network of communitytechnology centers, with its mission of access,evolved somewhat separately from the communityinfrastructure. So, while most of the resources forthis network have been deployed locally to bridgethe digital divide they have not been used tosupport building CBOs’ technology capacity.Building this kind of capacity will be challenging,since many of these organizations have been,historically, the last to benefit from technologicalinnovations. They have also struggled to find waysto use technology as a tool to advance theirmissions. Yet, addressing this “organizationaldivide”—or the lack of technology capacity in thecommunity based nonprofit sector—is the first stepin engaging community based organizations inusing technology to advance their missions. Oncethese organizations have the technical capacity, theycan produce community based content, participatein the new economy, and develop new policies tosupport other organizations’ efforts to use IT as partof a comprehensive equity-building strategy.

As we develop policies and programs to bridge thedigital divide we must insure that these are linkedto broader strategies for social change in two ways.First, we must allow the wisdom and experience ofthe existing community infrastructure to inform ourwork. Second, we must focus our efforts on usingemerging technologies as a tool to strengthen andsupport the community infrastructure.

Bridging the Organizational DivideMoving Beyond Access

9

Challenges and Opportunities Facing Community Based Organizations

Nonprofit Organizations andTechnology

As the digital divide gained national attention throughthe late 1990s, the nonprofit sector recognized thatit was experiencing a technology divide of its own.This was especially true for nonprofit communitybased organizations, since many lacked the resourcesor the capacity to maintain computer systems andgenerate local content. This organizational divide inthe nonprofit sector prompted several technologytechnical assistance (TA) providers to create theNational Strategy for Nonprofit Technology (NSNT),a leadership network of nonprofit staff members,funders, and TA providers. In 1998, determined toaddress the organizational divide from a nationalperspective, NSNT developed a blueprint of how thenonprofit sector could use information technologymore effectively and creatively. The blueprint alsohighlighted the challenges facing the sector in thelate 1990s:

…[that] most nonprofits are hesitant to usetechnology and are ill-informed about theimpact it could have on their work, thatfunders are reluctant to invest in efforts thatseem unrelated to program delivery, and that

technology assistance providers are ill-equippedto provide the kind and scale of supportnecessary to transform the nonprofit sector’suse of technology. Also, research indicates thatthere are disparities in nonprofits’ access toand use of technology – namely, that manynonprofits in low-income communities and incommunities of color are underserved withrespect to technology acquisition and use.4

The report suggests that the nonprofit sector hasbeen penalized in a number of ways for failing toadopt emerging technological innovations,including: 1) the inability to meet potential increasesin service demand; 2) the loss of funding due to theinability to demonstrate program outcomes; 3) theinability to compete with for-profit enterprises; and4) the inability to communicate effectively with theirconstituencies. A fifth penalty, identified by TrabianShorters of Technology Works for Good in hisreport, A Case For: Technology Works might be thegreatest consequence for not using these newtechnologies—the increased isolation or distancingof nonprofit organizations from the new economy.5

3


10

Shorters also documented the sector’s ambivalencetowards embracing technology and developed aclassification system for understanding “technologycultures” in nonprofit organizations. He indicatedthat regardless of mission, budget, or size, andorganization’s relationship to information technologycan be classified into one of four distinct categories:• Unnecessary: Failing to see the benefits of

technology and avoiding it as much as possible.No Internet access and limited computer use.

• Necessary Evil: Having a limited use oftechnology. Limited Internet access and limitedcomputer use.

• Necessary Good: Viewing technology as anecessary part of their work. Internet access andcomputer use.

• Strategic Advantage: Believing that the effectiveuse of technology will give them strategicadvantage. Using both the Internet andcomputers as strategic tools.6

According to Shorters, most community basedorganizations fall in the “Necessary Evil” categoryand are far from making technology a part of theirstrategic tool kit. His observation is supported by a1999 study by Wired for Good, a San José,California-based nonprofit research group, in whichSilicon Valley nonprofits were asked to name thethree most frequently used methods ofcommunication. The top three responses were thetelephone (77%), in-person meetings (70%), andhard-copy memos (45%). E-mail was near thebottom of the list at 28 percent and sharing filesacross a computer network ranked even lower at 18percent.7 CBOs are chronically understaffed andunder-resourced and most have not attempted togenerate funds or allocate the staff time necessaryto integrate technology into their work despite theclear potential benefits. As a result, an IT-capacitygap has developed in the nonprofit sector.

Three Avenues For BuildingTechnology Capacity

Although the community based nonprofit sectorfaces significant challenges in using IT as a tool tofurther its missions, a few innovative nonprofits areimportant exceptions. Those organizations thatrecognize the value of acquiring IT capacity havedone so in one or more of the following ways: 1) working with technical assistance providers, 2) partnering with community technology centers,

or 3) generating entrepreneurial initiatives of their own.

Avenue I: Technical Assistance ProvidersIn response to the nonprofit sector’s lack of ITcapacity, a number of organizations have arisen toprovide technical assistance. These nonprofit TAproviders fall into three categories—traditionaltechnical assistance providers; IT-focused TAproviders; and institutions of higher education.

Traditional, Nonprofit TA Providers. An increasingnumber of traditional nonprofit TA providers haveadded information technology services to the menuof supports they offer to community basedorganizations. For example, CompassPoint NonprofitServices, in the San Francisco Bay Area, has providedmanagement and training classes to the communitysector for decades. In light of the growing need forIT-specific assistance, CompassPoint also providestechnology services and co-sponsors an annualconference on nonprofits and technology. WhenCompassPoint and other traditional nonprofit TAproviders move into the IT arena, they often bring adeep understanding of the needs and challenges oflocal communities that allows them to leverage thisexpertise to effectively offer technology services.

IT–Specific TA Providers. The shift to an information-driven economy has generated a new type oftechnical assistance provider — one focused explicitlyon supporting the community based nonprofitsector’s use of technology. NPower and CompuMentor(see box on following page) are two examples ofthis type of organization. These organizationsprovide a vital service to the community basednonprofit sector.

Bridging the Organizational DivideChallenges and Opportunities

11

Technology TA Providers—National and Local Examples

CompuMentor www.compumentor.orgCompuMentor, based in San Francisco, California, isone of the largest and oldest national nonprofitcomputer assistance organizations. Since 1987,CompuMentor has served over 23,000 nonprofitsand schools with a range of person-to-personcomputer services. These include matching skilledvolunteers with schools and nonprofits, technologyplanning and consulting. The organization recentlylaunched TechSoup.org, a one-stop informationresource for nonprofit technology issues. TechSoupprovides information on hardware, finding the rightsoftware application, guidelines for selecting anappropriate database, planning your organization'snetwork, and how to get funding.

NPower www.npower.orgNPower is a regional nonprofit TA provider servingthe Greater Puget Sound area and New York City.The organization operates on a membership basiswith dues calculated on a sliding scale, dependingon an agency’s budget. Services include: technologyassessment and planning, technical assistance forapplication development, basic training classes forstaff, volunteer matching program, resource libraryand community events. NPower partners withregional and national TA providers.


12

There are two levels to this technical assistanceinfrastructure—national and local. National groupstend to play research and clearinghouse roles,provide direct service and make occasional referralsto local service providers that can offer directassistance. CompuMentor is included in this listalong with the National Council of NonprofitOrganizations, the Benton Foundation, theRockefeller Technology Project, the ProgressiveTechnology Project, OMB Watch’s Nonprofits’ Policyand Technology Project, and the National Strategyfor Nonprofit Technology. In some cases, theseorganizations (the Benton Foundation and OMBWatch) support public policy campaigns. Localgroups, on the other hand, provide direct assistanceby dispatching staff to organizations, linkingtechnicians, often known as circuit riders, toorganizations and offering technology courses forthe staffs of nonprofits. Some examples includeCompassPoint in San Francisco, NPower in Seattleand New York City, and Technology Works for Goodin Washington, DC.

Institutions of Higher Education. Universities andcommunity colleges, which are resource rich interms of hardware, software, and human capital,serve in the increasingly important capacity of TAprovider for nonprofit organizations. Many providean important community service through assistanceto nonprofit organizations and these partnershipsresonate with the mandate of many institutions ofhigher learning to contribute to the communities inwhich they are located.

Avenue III: Entrepreneurial, Community-Driven EffortsThe third avenue through which CBOs obtaintechnology capacity is through their own entrepreneurialefforts. Some CBOs have recognized the value of ITand have been successful in acquiring the necessaryresources to integrate it into their work. Thesebootstrap efforts are often lead by a charismaticand technology-committed leader, and supportedthrough the acquisition of public (e.g., Departmentof Commerce’s Technology Opportunities Program)or private foundation dollars earmarked for capacitybuilding and content development.

For the most part, technology TA has been madeavailable on a “build-it-and-they-will-come” basis.Community based nonprofits have been expectedto seek out TA providers and request the necessaryservices. But, many nonprofit organizations havenot been exposed to the recent innovations or thepotential of the Internet and have not used IT as atool to enhance their work. In fact, in many casestechnology is often considered as separate from orin competition with other program tasks rather thanas a tool that can support all of the organization’swork. For example, many nonprofits are not awareof CTCs in their own neighborhoods or TA providersat either the local or national levels. This isolationmay cause organizations to acquire the wrongtechnology and training which in turn might lead tofurther frustration and greater reluctance to usetechnology as a tool. As the technology TA fieldmatures, more outreach and education is needed toenable community based nonprofits to learn aboutthe benefits of information technologies.

Bridging the Organizational DivideChallenges and Opportunities

13

Avenue II: Community Technology Centers— An Emerging Source of Technical AssistanceThe nation’s access-centered technology strategy hasfostered the development of a powerful new type ofinstitution in low-income neighborhoods—thecommunity technology center (CTC). Present inalmost every low-income community across thecountry, community technology centers provide freeor low-cost access to and training on computers andthe Internet. With missions often focused on anequitable diffusion of technology in low-incomecommunities, CTCs tend to function independentlyof the existing community infrastructure. In thesesame communities, traditional community basedorganizations have tackled social and economicequity without the help of technology. Working inpartnership, CTCs and CBOs, have the experienceand wisdom to use technology as a tool to advancean equity agenda.

In a few instances, mature CTCs are connected tolarger neighborhood revitalization efforts andprovide capacity building technical assistance tocommunity based organizations. Some CTCs havealso become leaders of community building activitiesspearheading projects around government anddemocracy, health and human services, educationalservices, community involvement, quality-of-lifeinformation, economic development, and jobtraining. However, many of the connectionsbetween CBOs and CTCs have been developed inthe absence of policy directed at making theseconnections. Over the last five years, the emergingconnection between the community building andcommunity technology movements hasdemonstrated that CTCs could play an importantrole in providing technology TA to help strengthenthe existing community infrastructure.

Promising Practices:Making Use of Relevant Contentand Applications

In recent years, innovative examples of communitybased organizations using technology as a strategictool to support their work have begun to surface.These organizations have overcome a range ofchallenges and employed a number of mechanismsto support their efforts to incorporate technologyinto their programmatic activities. Six primaryactivities that community based organizationssupport through the use of information technologiesare summarized on the following page (see box onpage 15).

These six activities have been separated in order tofacilitate analysis even though they often overlap.For example, the information gathered through acommunity mapping process may be an importanttool in an advocacy campaign, or a communityinformation clearinghouse might be powered by aninteractive database to provide information to itsconstituents. In addition, CBOs tend to adoptsimpler applications that lie closest to their corework — such as databases to support evaluationand outreach, and listservs to enhance advocacy —first, then taking on more advanced applicationssuch as mapping after building confidence andwitnessing the power and potential of IT.

4


14

How Community Based OrganizationsUse IT Tools

Advocacy/Online Organizing. Digital technologiesare effective tools to support and enhance advocacyand organizing efforts. E-mail listservs, facilitateddiscussion lists, online action alerts, and other ITtools, help non-profit organizations communicatewith their constituencies, policymakers, and otherkey stakeholders. Online advocacy efforts are mostsuccessful when they promote or build upon offlineactivities.

Community Information Clearinghouse. The WorldWide Web is an effective vehicle for gathering anddisseminating information. Community basedorganizations are using the Internet to develop andshare localized and issue specific information withtheir constituents or other stakeholders interested intheir work.

Networking and Online Communities. One of themost effective uses of IT tools is to facilitatecoordination of activities, improve communicationand build or strengthen relationships. Communitybased organizations use a variety of resources, suchas e-mail, websites, and Virtual Private Networks(VPN) to collaborate with other groups and theirconstituencies. In the process they are buildingonline communities that enhance and support theiroffline networks.

Innovations in Service Delivery. Just as informationtechnologies are leading to productivity gains in theprivate sector, IT tools can be applied in thenonprofit sector to improve the delivery of socialservices. For example, the strategic use oftechnology can streamline service delivery, helpsocial service organizations serve a larger number ofconstituents, and facilitate collaboration acrossorganizations.

Interactive Database Development. The Internet ismoving more and more towards interactivity, withcomplex back-end databases allowing users tocreate individual online experiences by accessinginformation that is customized to their needs.Community groups use interactive databases tohelp their constituencies find employment,community assets, and other local information.

Community Mapping. Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) is a computer system that assembles,stores, manipulates, and displays geographicallyreferenced information. GIS, and other informationsystems, help identify and organize data accordingto location. These IT tools are being used bynonprofit organizations for public policy development,neighborhood planning, advocacy, and research.

Bridging the Organizational DividePromising Practices

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

Following is a discussion of how several exemplarycommunity based organizations use technology tostrengthen their work and accomplish their missions.These local successes serve as examples of promisingpractices that other organizations might use as models.


16

Innovative Community Based Organizations Using Information Technology

Type of Activity Organization Issue Area IT ToolsAdvocacy/ Welfare Law Center, Welfare reform, promoting Website, listservs , Internet,Online Organizing Community Voices Heard, participation by low-income training,technical assistance

Make The Road By Walking communities(New York, NY)

1000 Friends of Oregon Sprawl and other environmental Listservs, e-mail, other (State of Oregon) issues electronic tools

Information Clearinghouse CDC Network Community development, Internet, e-mail, online (Cleveland, OH) affordable housing resource bank, other

e-business tools

Online Communities/ Grace Hill Building social capital, Web-based Time Dollar Networking (St. Louis, MO) neighborhood revitalization Exchange system, computer

mentoring, online resource bank

Technology Access Foundation Organizational development for Virtual Private Network (Seattle, WA) youth- serving agencies (VPN)

Innovations in Sexual Assault Crisis Center Support services for survivors of Online support group Service Delivery (Androscoggin, ME) sexual violence, advocacy (similar to a “chat room”)

Interactive Database East Bay Works Employment and training Web-based data systems,Development (Oakland, CA) services online job training resource

bank, individualized email accounts

Cabrini Connections Tutoring and mentoring Web-based data systems,(Chicago, IL) GIS technologies, resource

bank mentoring services and best practices

Community Mapping Neighborhood Knowledge Neighborhood revitalization, Interactive Electronic Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) advocacy, public policy Monitoring System, GIS,

training for residents

National Neighborhood Neighborhood development, Various information systems,Indicators Project, Boston community building including GIS, resource banks,Community Building Network interactive databases(Boston, MA)

Advocacy and Online OrganizingFor decades the fields of advocacy and communityorganizing have worked to promote equity, encouragecivic engagement, and build strong, empoweredcommunities. One of their primary strategies forachieving these goals is the creation of institutionsand mechanisms that allow those who have beenexcluded from decision-making processes to advocatefor the redistribution of power and promote greatercivic participation.8 The Internet and other emergingcommunication technologies have the potential tofacilitate that process by: • Allowing a greater number of people to access

and exchange information about theircommunities and public policies;

• Achieving a larger scale and efficiency toorganizing efforts; and

• Building affinity relationships around issue areasacross geographic spaces.

Below are two examples of organizing efforts thatdemonstrate the role IT can play in this process—one focused on welfare reform, the other oncombating sprawl legislation.

The Welfare Law Center’s Low-Income Networkingand Communication (LINC) project was establishedin 1998 to support the capacity of grassrootsorganizations to use technology to enhance theiradvocacy work. The Welfare Law Center, a nationallaw and policy organization founded in 1965,recognized that information technology could helpbring low-income groups into the public debateover welfare policies. The LINC project uses technologyto build and strengthen a welfare reform advocacymovement by: (1) building a communicationsinfrastructure that allows advocates to collaborateand share information; and (2) creating a technicalassistance strategy that increases the capacity oflocal low-income groups to mount their ownorganizing efforts.

The two components of LINC’s communicationsinfrastructure include: (1) a website that serves asan information clearinghouse for grassroots welfarereform organizations; and (2) a listserv that promotesdialogue and mutual mentoring for organizers,while also serving as a vehicle for coordinatingnational campaigns. Both the Welfare Law Center’sfamiliarity with the issue and its network ofrelationships with grassroots organizations haveplaced it in a unique position to organize the fieldnationally using information technology.

At the same time, the Welfare Law Center’s LINCproject supports local organizing efforts in NewYork City by building the technical capacity ofgrassroots organizations. One example is CommunityVoices Heard (CVH), a group of predominantly low-income women on welfare, who are workingtogether to make improvements in their communities,and advance the political, economic and socialrights of other welfare recipients and low-wageworkers. Through public and political education,community and legislative organizing, leadershipdevelopment and training, CVH works to ensurethat the voice of welfare recipients informs thewelfare reform debate.

With LINC’s assistance, CVH engages in onlineactivities to augment their offline efforts to promoteequity. For example, CVH built a Worker’s ComputerCenter where community members can learn aboutthe Internet and how to use it for research andorganizing. Online sample letters, legislative contactinformation, and instructions on how to downloadthese materials, have greatly facilitated theirparticipation in the political process. Most recently,CVH has matched its membership database withGIS mapping software to identify members’ politicaldistricts. By dividing its membership into politicalconstituencies based on the district in which theylive, CVH can quickly identify and mobilize membersto meet with state legislators and ensure that theirvoices are represented in public policyconversations.


17

The Brooklyn-based Make the Road By Walking hasalso received technical assistance from the LINCproject. They have posted a complaint form on theirwebsite that welfare applicants, recipients andadvocates can download to report mistreatment bylocal welfare agencies. Make the Road by Walkingthen uses these complaints in their advocacy campaignto secure fair treatment of public benefits claimants.

IT tools are also supporting the advocacy efforts of1000 Friends of Oregon. This nonprofit organizationfounded in 1975, works to safeguard Oregon’squality-of-life through the conservation of farm andforest lands, protection of natural and historicresources, and the promotion of livable communitiesby combining advocacy, education and research. Onthe advocacy front its efforts include: defending andimproving the state’s land-use laws and regulationsbefore the state legislature and state agencies;developing and advancing new policies and programsthat help Oregonians manage growth at the state,regional and local levels; and litigation to establishlegal precedents and to enforce existing laws.

1000 Friends of Oregon has used digital technologiesin a variety of ways to support its efforts. Late inOregon’s 1997 legislative session, a bill was resuscitatedthat would have allowed for the development ofSmith Rock, a recreation area. This happened whenthere was less than an hour notice before legislativehearings. Recognizing their need to mobilize quicklyand aware that mail, a phone bank, or door-to-doororganizing and other traditional organizing toolswould be too slow, 1000 Friends of Oregon enlistedthe help of ONE/Northwest, to develop an Internetorganizing strategy. ONE/Northwest, a Seattle-basednonprofit organization that provides technology TAto conservation activists in the Northwest, used theirextensive e-mail list and other electronic networkingactivities to mobilize a legislative lobbying campaignthat thwarted the bill. 1000 Friends of Oregon’sintimate knowledge of local legislative issues andrelationships with the conservation community,coupled with ONE/Northwest’s technical expertisecreated this success.

These examples illustrate the power of IT tools tostrengthen organizing efforts. A common threadconnecting all of these success stories is the factthat a CBO’s thorough knowledge of the issues andthe constituencies involved drove the organizing/advocacy strategy while IT was used to strengthenand augment the work. Online activism mustsupport and inspire offline public participation inorder for the organizing and advocacy benefits oftechnology to be fully realized. Virtual vehiclescannot replace traditional organizing techniques;but they can enhance them. Also, as the Internetand other communications devices are used moreand more to support offline organizing efforts, wemust insure that low-income communities, and theorganizations that serve them, have the requisitetraining and access to these technologies. If theabove examples demonstrate that IT tools can bedemocratizing vehicles, it must also be rememberedthat these same tools can reinforce an imbalance ofpower if they are not available to all communities.

Information ClearinghousePerhaps the most powerful attribute of the WorldWide Web is its use as a tool for gathering anddisseminating information. Some CBOs have begunto use the Internet to develop and share localizedand issue specific information with their constituentsand other organizations. Some information clearing-houses focus on a geographic area, enablingresidents and visitors to find valuable informationabout institutions, government, events and localhistory. Other information clearinghouses are issue-specific, allowing “communities of interest” to buildtheir shared knowledge base.

One example of an issue-driven clearinghouse is theCleveland CDC Technology 2000 Team (T2K) Initiative.The T2K initiative was organized in July 1998 by theEnterprise Foundation—Cleveland and the ClevelandHousing Network to build the capacity of Cleveland’sCommunity Development Corporations (CDCs) byusing information technology. The T2K team iscomprised of a broad range of technology providersand community based organizations, including thetwo founding organizations and NeighborhoodProgress, Inc., the City of Cleveland, CommunityDevelopment Department and City Planning


18

Department, Cleveland Neighborhood DevelopmentCorporation, Center for Neighborhood Development,Cleveland State University, Local Initiatives SupportCorporation — Cleveland Office, and Case WesternReserve University. Early in the development of T2K,a set of principles was established to guide theoperations of the collaborative effort. These include:• Coordinate technology initiatives to create a

common industry platform and ensure theusefulness and consistency of T2K applications.

• Improve the efficiency and increase the qualityof CDC business practices.

• Decentralize access to information and databasetools.

• Promote communication and cross learning inthe local CDC industry.

• Provide CDCs with strategic funding fortechnology startup.

• Provide accessible and affordable central supportand technical assistance.

Using these principles, the T2K Team quickly beganto create an information clearinghouse that wouldcoordinate and address the immediate priorities thatwould be most useful to Cleveland’s CDCs. TheTeam set out developing new products on a common,web-enabled platform in order to provide desktopaccess to CDCs along with central training andsupport. The IT Department at Cleveland HousingNetwork (CHN) was identified as the project managerfor most new products and “www.t2k.org” wasestablished as the fully functional web portal for theproject. T2K received a major boost in September1999 when CHN was awarded a $500,000, three-year, Department of Commerce (TOP) grant,matched one-to-one with local funds, to supportthe initiative.

By 2001, some of T2K’s accomplishments includethe following: • Produced an on-line, CDC e-mail address book

and citywide training and events calendar.• Funded and provided technical assistance to

over 30 CDCs to give over 350 staff desktopInternet and email access.

• Funded and provided technical assistance to 21CDCs in upgrading their office IT systems,resulting in over $100,000 in total investment.

• Developed and delivered technology training toover 100 CDC staff in Excel, Access, Outlook,Windows NT, and use of the Internet.

• Rolled-out a web enabled software tool for CDCreporting to the City of Cleveland and HUD onall CDBG and HOME activities and projects.

• Piloted an online “Sales & Leasing Center” forCDCs and a Section 8 housing directory forCMHA, linked to online neighborhood tours.

• Produced online program management softwarefor CDC Home Repair, Individual DevelopmentAccount, and Asset Management Programs.

• Created an interactive “Neighborhood IndicatorsDatabase” that provides CDCs with desktopresearch, neighborhood planning and mappingcapability; and provides funders with a systemfor measuring the impact of CDC initiatives.

• Deployed a “lending library’ of 20 Palm Pilotsfor CDCs to use in conducting a variety ofneighborhood surveys – gathering data that isnot available from any existing source.

• Staffed a citywide “Help Desk” to provide CDCstechnical support.

• Selected the location for fifteen neighborhoodcomputer kiosks through which neighborhoodresidents will be able to access the wealth ofinformation assembled by T2K and its partners.

The T2K initiative uses Internet technologies to buildthe capacity of community organizations viainformation sharing. The strength of the CDCNetworkstems from its targeted focus on a specific geography(Cleveland) and issue area (housing). Because localpractitioners guide the development of theCDCNetwork, the larger organization reflects thepriorities and needs of the neighborhood organizations.


19

Networking and Online Communities Improving communication to coordinate activities, or share experiences and perspectives is one of themost logical uses of IT tools. CBOs use e-mail,websites, and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) towork collaboratively with each other and improveservice delivery to their constituents. This helps buildonline communities that enhance and supportoffline networks. Two examples, one, which promotesbuilding relationships between low-income St. Louisresidents, and another that facilitates youth-servingorganizations in Seattle, demonstrate the power andeffectiveness of online spaces.

Founded in 1903, Grace Hill is a neighborhooddevelopment organization serving disadvantagedcommunities in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The organization bases its work on the self-helptradition of the Settlement House movement andstrives to: (1) work for social change within societyto foster greater support and understanding of the disadvantaged; and, (2) work in disadvantagedneighborhoods to create strong, healthy, helpingcommunities by encouraging and supportingneighbors as they help themselves and others.

Grace Hill’s Member Organized Resource Exchange(MORE) is an example of a “neighbors helpingneighbors” approach to community change. TheMORE Time Dollar Exchange is a community basednetwork of services that can be exchanged likecurrency between neighbors. The MORE systemallows neighbors to earn and save “time dollars”when they volunteer their services to one another.The computerized tracking system allows Grace Hillto monitor and track activity while providingparticipating residents with a monthly report of“time dollars” earned and owed. Services barteredbetween neighbors under the MORE system include:auto repair, childcare, gardening, photography, taxassistance, transportation, tutoring, writing, andmore. Formalizing and enhancing the skills residentsalready possess creates a base for an effective“neighbors helping neighbors” approach.

The “time dollar” approach was first implementedin 1982 with an accounting system maintained byGrace Hill staff on index cards. In 1985, Grace Hillcomputerized the “time dollar” system. Thisallowed staff to more easily update, categorize andshare information about residents’ skills andabilities. The automation led to a massive increasein the number of residents participating in theMORE Time Dollar Exchange.

In 1995, a TIIAP grant from the Department ofCommerce (now referred to as TOP) facilitated athird upgrade to the “time dollar” system. GraceHill used TIIAP funds to upgrade existing computersystems and establish a network of personalcomputers in agencies and public sites throughoutthe Grace Hill service area. This latest upgrade ledto another significant increase in participation in the“time dollar” program, since residents were nowable to access their accounts without the assistanceof Grace Hill staff. At the same time, Grace Hillcreated its Computer Mentor program so thatresidents with some computer know-how couldprovide basic computer training to others in theircommunity, enabling all interested residents toacquire the skills necessary to access their accountsonline. Although Grace Hill initiated the ComputerMentor program to enable greater participation inthe “time dollar” system, residents’ initial exposureto computers and the Internet sparked an interest,for some, in more advanced IT training. Over time,Grace Hill has expanded the “time dollar” system to include a comprehensive online resource bank ofservices available in the St. Louis metropolitan area,as well as a geo-spatial mapping of communityresources and assets.

The Time Dollar Exchange is a compelling exampleof how technology can serve as a tool for buildingthe social capital and community network essentialfor strong, healthy neighborhoods. Through the useof IT, Grace Hill has been able to achieve a largerscale of participation and spark a resident interest incomputers and the Internet, while at the same timeamassing a storehouse of information aboutcommunity assets and needs.


20

Technology Access Foundation (TAF), a nonprofitSeattle-based agency with a mission to providecommunities of color access to technology, isanother example of an organization using technologyto build community. TAF is an umbrella organizationthat leverages and builds upon the work of othernon-profits devoted to providing access to technologyfor children and youth in predominately minoritycommunities. TAF also develops programs thatenable students to enjoy a dynamic interaction asinventors and users of technology and providers of content. At the heart of their work is an effort to use technology to address the root causes of the cycle of poverty—low- paying jobs, reliance on public assistance, and an inadequate education. By offering opportunities to build IT skills, andlinking these newfound skills to the basic educationthese minority youth receive in school, TAF iscreating pathways to improved educational andcareer opportunities.

To fulfill their mission, TAF focuses on four coreinitiatives: (1) information technology training toenable communities of color to find employment in the IT sector; (2) computer fluency training toinsure that youth have the basic IT-literacy neededto participate in our digital society; (3) increasedawareness of technology’s importance in low-incomeand communities of color and; (4) activities thatinform parents and students about higher educationrequirements and how or where to get thoserequirements met.

One of TAF’s projects is Connecting Communities ofColor (C3), a collaboration of technology- focused,community-based organizations and individuals whorecognize the urgent need for people of color toparticipate in the IT revolution. TAF brought theseorganizations together in order to leverage theirexisting resources and help to create new ones. Onesupport that TAF provides these organizations is aVirtual Private Network (VPN) that allows the C3

consortium to more strategically coordinate theirtechnology efforts. VPNs are a commonly utilizedtool in the private sector, but few community basedorganizations have benefited from this powerful ITapplication.

Innovations in Service DeliveryJust as IT tools are leading to productivity gains inthe private sector, they can also be applied in thenonprofit sector to improve the delivery of socialservices. The Sexual Assault Crisis Center is oneexample of how the strategic use of technology can streamline service delivery, assist social serviceorganizations to serve a larger number of clients,and facilitate collaboration across organizations toenhance the provision of support services.

Based in Androscoggin, Maine, the Sexual AssaultCrisis Center (SACC) is dedicated to ending sexualvictimization and assisting the healing of peopleaffected by rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuseand sexual harassment. SACC provides an array ofservices for survivors of sexual violence, including: a 24-hour hotline, a Sexual Assault Response Team,support groups, programs targeted at adolescents,and in-school education programs.

Most recently, SACC enhanced its existing serviceswith online support groups. Operating on a secure,private, closed site that can only be accessed byauthorized individuals, SACC allows survivors ofsexual assault to connect to each other in a safeway, and at times when other support groups arenot available (e.g., late evening hours). The fact thata trained staff moderates the group enables SACCto maintain control of who participates. If anunauthorized person should manage to “breakinto” the support group, he or she can be removed.SACC counselors also maintain offline contact withclients, enabling counselors to contact them viaphone or make home visits in case of an emergency.SACC and other community based organizationsare using IT in ways that make virtual and face-to-face relationships mutually reinforcing.


21

Once again, this tool only works if potentialparticipants are comfortable with the technology,and, in this case, have home access to the Internet.In order to ensure that as many survivors as possibleparticipate in the project, SACC accepts donationsof computers. A SACC volunteer, who is also asurvivor of sexual violence, upgrades and readies thecomputers for Internet use. SACC also providesbasic training. The computers – with the requisitetraining – are given to survivors so that they canparticipate in the online support group.

Interactive Database DevelopmentThe Internet is increasingly moving towards greaterinteractivity, with complex back end databasesallowing users to create individual online experiencesby accessing information customized to their needs.Community based organizations have begun to useinteractive databases to help their constituents findemployment, learn about community assets andresources, and access other local information. Twoexamples, one focused on workforce developmentand the other on mentoring, both highlight howinteractive online databases can advancecommunity-building goals.

East Bay Works is an online directory of employmentand training services available to job seekers andemployers of Contra Costa and Alameda counties inCalifornia. Area Private Industry Councils, governmentagencies, community colleges, educational agencies,and CBOs collaborated to create East Bay Worksbecause they recognized that the existing workforcedevelopment system is fragmented, duplicative, anddifficult to use. East Bay Works is one component ofa larger effort to create a comprehensive andintegrated employment and training system thatincludes the development of 16 one-stop careercenters throughout the East Bay.

The East Bay Works website is an interactive,regional directory of employment and trainingservices. The site has a portal for employers, whichfacilitates posting and tracking jobs online. Anotherportal allows job seekers to post resumes, search forregional employment opportunities, and participatein discussions about training opportunities. Localwage and labor market information, an eventscalendar, resource listings, links to local trainingproviders and national job banks are also available.The user-friendly interface, and the free Emailaccounts given to all participants, ensures that thewebsite is accessible to as many individuals aspossible.

Since its initiation in 1997, East Bay Works providedkey information to hundreds of thousands of jobseekers and employers in the San Francisco BayArea. Online job databases have been one of thekey ingredients for maintaining the labor pool ofthe knowledge-based economy. East Bay Worksdemonstrates how useful this type of online contentis for the nonprofit sector.

Formed in 1992, Cabrini Connections provides aframework that enables and encourages adultvolunteers to provide positive development supportsto children in disadvantaged environments such asthe Cabrini Green housing development in Chicago.The organization is made up of two programs—Kids’ Connection and Tutor/Mentor Connection.Kids’ Connection combines tutoring, mentoring,and a school-to-work approach to help participatingyouth complete high school and enter a career orinstitution of higher education. The Tutor/MentorConnection (T/MC) was formed in 1993 as aresearch and advocacy arm of Cabrini Connections.T/MC gathers and organizes information aboutsuccessful after-school tutor/mentor programs andshares that knowledge in order to expand theavailability and enhance the effectiveness of servicesfor children and youth in the Chicago region.


22

T/MC uses a range of IT tools to support its work.For example, T/MC maintains a database of over12,000 volunteers, programs, businesses, foundations,media and community leaders. This database usesGIS technology to create an interactive map ofChicago with overlays illustrating poverty, poorschools, and locations of tutor/mentor programs.Online versions of this map and database help bothresidents, individuals and organizations to findprograms and advocate for youth services in areaswhere there are gaps.

East Bay Works and T/MC highlight theeffectiveness of interactive databases to store, shareand disseminate community information. Althoughdatabases are hardly a new application, the interactiveand online nature of these examples allows largernumbers of people to access information quickly andefficiently. Current applications are also more userfriendly than older database software, making iteasier for CBOs to integrate them into their work.

Community MappingGeographic Information Systems (GIS) is a computerapplication that assembles, stores, manipulates, anddisplays geographically referenced information. GISapplications are increasingly being used for publicpolicy development, neighborhood planning, advocacy,and research. Although GIS was once used only by universities and policy/research institutes, it isincreasingly being used by community basedorganizations in a variety of ways. GIS mapping holdsgreat promise, as it enables CBOs to understand acommunity’s assets, provide early warning systems,and generate information about local needs. Mapsalso offer a visual component to sophisticated policyissues, making policy more accessible.

Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles (NKLA), aproject of the UCLA Advanced Policy Institute, theCommunity Development Information Coalition,and a host of city agencies and non-profit organizations,provides residents of Los Angeles with specificinformation about their neighborhoods. The NKLAwebsite integrates several databases to develop anInteractive Neighborhood Electronic MonitoringSystem (NEMS), which allows visitors to accesscomprehensive information on individual propertiesor neighborhoods. For example, residents can viewinformation about tax delinquencies, code violations,utility liens, and other signs of property neglect,allowing them to develop strategies to improveliving conditions. A community asset mappingcomponent helps residents to identify and buildupon community strengths. Census demographicinformation, as well as the ability to conduct advancedqueries such as, “how many properties in my zipcode are tax delinquent and have code complaints”is also available. To ensure broad communityinvolvement and access, NKLA has created English,Spanish, and text-only versions of its website. NKLAalso provides residents with training on how to usethe community information found on the website asa tool for neighborhood change. As governmentagencies increasingly make raw data sets availableonline, NKLA can localize and contextualize thisinformation in a manner that makes it understandableand relevant to community residents.

The NKLA project: provides rich and detailedinformation about communities, allows organizationsand residents to hold government officials accountable,generates and organizes timely information aboutneighborhood decline, and enables communityactivists to craft well-informed strategies for neigh-borhood improvement. In addition to strengtheningcommunity development activities, this project is aperfect example of a new, community-driven modelfor research and public policy development. Thetechnical knowledge of the university, coupled withthe deep local knowledge of the communitypartners has been essential to the success of theNKLA project.


23

An example of a collaborative effort to strengthenthe use of neighborhood-level information systemsin local policymaking and community building canbe found at The Urban Institute. The Urban Institute,a Washington D.C. based nonprofit policy researchorganization, in partnership with local communitygroups, initiated the National NeighborhoodIndicators Partnership (NNIP) to create and sharelocal socioeconomic data. All of the partners havelocally self-sustaining information systems that trackneighborhood conditions. Some of the neighborhoodindicators that local partners track include: births,deaths, crime, health status, educational performance,public assistance, and property conditions. NNIP usesthis information to build locally-driven strategies toimprove distressed urban neighborhoods. Its goal is toextend the impact of local partners using informationsystems by collaborating, sharing best practices,disseminating project outputs, developing creativestrategies to support local efforts, and building aNational Neighborhood Data System that integratesinformation from local partners.

One of the local NNIP partners, the Boston CommunityBuilding Network (BCBN) works to catalyze andbuild upon the strengths and assets of the GreaterBoston community including, its nonprofit, private,and public institutions; its growing racial and culturaldiversity; and residents’ ideas and shared aspirationsfor the future. The BCBN uses IT tools to supportseveral initiatives including the Boston Children andFamilies Database, the Boston Community BuildingCurriculum, and the Boston Indicators of Change,Progress, and Sustainability—a civic processcosponsored with the City of Boston’s SustainableBoston Initiative.


24

Next Steps:A Comprehensive Policy Approach to the Digital Divide

We are at a critical juncture in the evolution ofpublic policy that will bridge the digital divide. Wehave made significant advances in creating accesspoints for marginalized communities, but alsorealize that access alone is not going be to the solesolution. If the United States continues to primarilysupport access-centered policy, we are at the risk ofbuilding digital bridges to nowhere— a nationalnetwork of computers and trained residents withlittle reason to use information technology. Wemight also miss the opportunity to aid communitybased organizations use IT to tackle the complexarray of social and economic dynamics that divideour society. The digital revolution necessitates a newgeneration of programs and policies to utilizetechnology as a tool for building strong communities.The examples reviewed in this report offer afoundation to address two shortcomings of currentdigital divide policy—1) the lack of relevant communitycontent online, and 2) the lack of technologycapacity in the community based nonprofit sector.

By addressing these two deficits of current digitaldivide policy, we can move towards a comprehensiveapproach to the digital divide that includes supportfor individual access, as well as support for buildingthe technology capacity of nonprofit communitybased organizations.

The PolicyLink vision of a comprehensive approachto the digital divide policy includes four integratedcomponents—technology access and training forindividuals, technology capacity building forcommunity based organizations, the expansion ofrelevant local content and the development of newapplications. (See box that follows)

Bridging the Organizational DivideNext Steps

25

5

A Comprehensive Policy Approach to Bridgingthe Digital Divide

Access for individuals, capacity building fororganizations, content, and applications takentogether constitute a comprehensive strategy forbridging the digital divide. The universal accessmovement serves the important function of buildingthe infrastructure upon which we develop strategiesfor greater social and economic inclusion. Parallel touniversal access strategies we need efforts thatpromote the development of relevant content forresidents and innovative IT applications that cansupport the work of community based organizationsfocused on promoting equity.

• Technology Access and Training for Individuals:Universal access to computers and the Internet,combined with basic technology literacy training is a critical component to bridging the digital divide. Creating diverse and varied access points,opportunities for computer ownership fordisadvantaged families, and building technologyliteracy constitute the basic infrastructure requiredfor a digitally equitable society. As we continue towork towards universal access it is important tocreate access points in locations that fit in the livesof the technologically underserved, whether by co-locating with community based institutions theyalready utilize, public housing projects, libraries, etc.Additionally, as further advances in broadbandtechnologies occur we must insure they are madeavailable to all segments of society.

• Technology Capacity Building for CommunityBased Organizations: Community organizationsare the gatekeepers of local information and are the essential ingredient for creating local contentthat is relevant and useful to low-income residents.Building this kind of capacity will be challenging,since many of these organizations have been,historically, the last to benefit from technologicalinnovations. Yet, addressing this “organizationaldivide”—or lack of technology capacity in thecommunity based nonprofit sector—is the first step

in engaging community based organizations in usingtechnology to advance their missions. Once theseorganizations have the technical capacity, they canproduce community-based content, participate inthe new economy, and develop new policies tosupport other organizations’ efforts to use IT as partof a comprehensive equity-building strategy.

• Relevant Content, Created By and ForCommunities: A recent strategic audit of onlinecontent conducted by the Children’s Partnershipdemonstrated that another dimension of the digitaldivide is the lack of content that is relevant to thelives of low-income and underserved communities.9

The study indicates that the content most useful tocommunities at risk of being left behind includesthe following: (1) employment, education, businessdevelopment, and other information; (2) informationthat can be clearly understood by limited-literacyusers; (3) information in multiple languages; and (4) opportunities to create content and interact withit so that it is culturally appropriate. PolicyLink views the development of relevant online content—created by and for low-income communities—as acritical component to bridging the digital divide. The presence of content that addresses the needs of the underserved can spark a desire to acquireaccess to and facility in using digital technologies.As such universal access and relevant online contentare mutually reinforcing variables in the digitalequity equation.

• Development of Innovative InformationTechnology Applications: Information technologiesare powerful tools that have revolutionizedproduction processes and increased productivitygains in many sectors of the economy. Thesetechnologies can also be as a tool for communityproblem solving. For example, innovative ITapplications can enhance and improve servicedelivery, create social and economic opportunity.


26

Policy Approaches

Since the digital divide first emerged as a nationalpolicy issue in the early 1990s, not enough has beendone to bring technology resources to communitybased organizations or to use technology to extendthe work of the existing community infrastructure.A comprehensive approach to the digital dividemust address these policy gaps. This section highlightspolicy issues to help move from the scattered localsuccesses of community based organizationsutilizing IT as a strategic tool to building a vibrantinfrastructure that creates dynamic content andapplications. Below are four areas in which policyand program supports are needed to address thebarriers facing CBOs and create an environmentthat promotes the use of information technology in a comprehensive manner.

Capacity Building. Enhancing the technologicalcapacity of community based nonprofits is animportant step towards bridging the digital divide.These groups are the rich repositories of localinformation that enables them to use IT to developinvaluable content and applications. Also, as theirtechnology capacity increases, CBOs will be betterable to secure new resources; modify their ownambivalence towards technology; and influencefuture policy. Suggested strategies to build the ITcapacity of community organizations include: • Forge strong local relationships between CBOs

and CTCs by: 1) creating venues for collaboration;2) identifying concrete areas where linkages arepossible (e.g., job training, economic development,etc.); and 3) developing intermediaries thatfacilitate relationship building and garner resourcesfor support.

• Encourage collaboration between TA providersand CBOs through: 1) increased outreach tocommunity groups by technology TA providers;2) forums that create opportunities for mutuallearning; and 3) programs that fund and supportthese and other capacity-building relationships.

Resources. In order for community basedorganizations to develop content and applicationsthat strengthen their programmatic work, they willneed additional financial resources. Too often limitedbudgets force organizations to choose betweentechnology and other activities, when technology’simportance is underscored by the fact that it is atool that can support a range of activities. Somepolicies and programs that would increase the CBO’savailable IT resources include:• Increase funding for programs like the Department

of Commerce’s Technology OpportunitiesProgram (TOP).

• Create new federal, state and local fundingstreams that support nonprofit organizations’use of information technology.

• Direct private sector funding for IT programsdesigned to support community groups’ effortsto build their technological capacity.

• Increase philanthropic support for IT componentsof various ongoing community initiatives.

Public Policy. Community based organizations havebeen a minority player in most public policy initiativesdespite the fact that the federal government hascontributed hundreds of millions of dollars to createa supportive technology infrastructure. Federal,state and local policies must be reshaped so theyare more in sync with CBOs’ technology while alsopromoting the development of local content andapplications. Federal mechanisms that can supportthe next phase of IT programs include:• Expanding the Technology Opportunities

Program’s mission of to emphasize content andIT application development.

• Expand the Department of Education’s E-Rateprogram so that CBOs can benefit fromtelecommunications discounts.

• Insure that innovations in broadband technologyare extended to community based nonprofits.

Bridging the Organizational DivideNext Steps

27

Culture-of-Use. Community organizations mustshift their thinking and view technology not as a“necessary evil” but as a strategic tool if we are todevelop the content and applications necessary tobridge the digital divide. Strategies that promote aculture-of-use in community based organizations,and the disadvantaged constituencies they workwith, are critical. Some activities that promote aculture- of- use include:• Developing stronger and deeper linkages

between technologists and community buildersso that awareness of technology’s impact isbetter understood by CBOs.

• Creating an inventory of community basedapplications, along with technology descriptions,that illustrate how IT tools can be used as a toolfor social change.

• Create online and offline opportunities forcommunity based organizations to shareknowledge and experience around developingcontent and applications.

1 Content is relevant and meaningful community based information on

topics such as employment, housing, community events, education,

childcare, and social services. This information must be able to be

understood by limited-literacy users, published in appropriate

languages and offered in culturally appropriate manners (Children’s

Partnership, Online Content Development for Low-Income and

Underserved Americans—The Digital Divide’s New Frontier, 2000). 2 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, US

Department of Commerce. Falling Through the Net. Series 1995,

1998, 1999, 2000. 3 Community infrastructure includes residents, activists, community

development corporations, social service organizations, affordable

housing developments, faith institutions, business owners, schools, etc.

working together and independently to address poverty and racism.4 The Planning Partners for a National Strategy for Nonprofit Technology.

A Blueprint for Infusing Technology into the Nonprofit Sector. 1999.5 Shorters, Trabian. A Case For: Technology Works. 1999.6 Shorters, Trabian. A Case For: Technology Works. 1999.7 Wired for Good—A Joint Venture of Center for Excellence in

Nonprofits and Smart Valley, Inc. Technology Survey Final Report.

1999.8 Stoecker, Randy. Cyberspace vs. Face to face: Community Organizing in

the New Millennium. 2000. 9 The Children’s Partnership. Online Content for Low-Income and

Underserved Americans—The digital divide’s New Frontier: A Strategic

Audit of Activities and Opportunities. 2000.


28

Appendix A:Technology Technical Assistance Providers and Case Study Examples:World Wide Web Citations and References

Benton Foundationwww.benton.org

Community Technology Centers’ Networkwww.ctcnet.org

CompassPoint Nonprofit Serviceswww.compasspoint.org

CompuMentorwww.compumentor.orgwww.techsoup.org

National Council of Nonprofit Associationswww.ncna.org

The Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Networkwww.nten.org

Npowerwww.npower.orgwww.npowerny.org

OMB Watchwww.ombwatch.org

Progressive Technology Projectwww.progressivetech.org

TechRockswww.techrocks.org

Technology Works for Goodwww.technologyworks.org

Case Study Examples (Listed in order of appearance)

Welfare Law Center’s Low-Income Networking andCommunications Project (LINC)www.lincproject.org

1000 Friends of Oregon – ONE/Northwestwww.friends.orgwww.onenw.org

Cleveland CDC Technology 2000 Team (T2K)www.T2K.org

Grace Hillwww.gracehill.org

Technology Access Foundationwww.techaccess.org

East Bay Workswww.eastbayworks.org

Cabrini Connectionswww.tutormentorconnection.org

Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeleshttp://nkla.sppsr.ucla.edu

National Neighborhood Indicators Partnershipwww.urban.org/nnip

Boston Community Building Networkwww.tbf.org/current/bcbn.html

Bridging the Organizational DivideAppendix A

29

Appendix B:References

Anderson, Teresa E., and Alan Melchior. 1995.Assessing telecommunications technology as a toolfor urban community building. The Journal of UrbanTechnology 3 (1): 29–44.

Benton Foundation. 1996. The TelecommunicationsAct of 1996 and the Changing CommunicationsLandscape. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.

Benton Foundation. 1997. The New Definition ofUniversal Service and the Role for Public InterestAdvocates to Make Federal TelecommunicationsPolicy Work in Your State. Washington, DC: BentonFoundation.

The Children’s Partnership. 2000. Online Contentfor Low-Income and Underserved Americans: TheDigital Divide’s New Frontier. Santa Monica, CA:The Children’s Partnership.

Goslee, Susan. 1998. Losing Ground Bit by Bit: Low-income Communities in the Information Age.Benton Foundation.

National Community Building Network (NCBN) andThe Heller School, Center for Human Resources,Brandeis University. 1997. The Community Builders’Guide to Telecommunications Technology.

National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA). 1995. Falling Through theNet: A survey of the “have nots” in rural and urbanAmerica. Washington, DC: NationalTelecommunications and Information Administration.

National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA). 1998. Falling Through theNet II: New Data on the Digital Divide. Washington,DC: National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration.

National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA). 1999. Falling Through theNet: Defining the Digital Divide. A report on thetelecommunications and information technologygap in America. Washington, DC: NationalTelecommunications and InformationAdministration.

National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration (NTIA). 2000. Falling Through theNet: Toward Digital Inclusion. A report onAmericans’ access to technology tools. Washington,DC: National Telecommunications and InformationAdministration.

Novak, Thomas P., and Donna L. Hoffman. 1998.Bridging the Digital Divide: The Impact of Race onComputer Access and Internet Use: 1–13. Nashville,TN: Vanderbilt University.


30

The Planning Partners for a National Strategy forNonprofit Technology. 1999. A Blue Print forInfusing Technology into the Nonprofit Sector.

Sanyal, Bish, and Donald A. Schön. 1999.Information Technology and Urban Poverty: TheRole of Public Policy. In D. Schön, B. Sanyal, and W.Mitchell, eds., High Technology and Low-IncomeCommunities: Prospects for the Positive Use ofAdvanced Information Technology. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Servon, Lisa J., and John B. Horrigan. 1997. Urbanpoverty and access to information technology: Arole for local government. Journal of UrbanTechnology 4 (3): 61–81.

Shorters, Trabian. 1999. A Case for Technology Works.

Stoecker, Randy. 2000. Cyberspace vs. Face to face:Community Organizing in the New Millennium.

Wired for Good – A Joint Venture of Center forExcellence in Nonprofits and Smart Valley, Inc. 1999.Technology Survey Final Report.

Bridging the Organizational DivideAppendix B

31

PolicyLink National Office:101 BroadwayOakland, CA 94607Tel: 510/663-2333 Fax: 510/663-9684

Communications Office:1350 Broadway, Suite 1901New York, NY 10018Tel: 212/629-9570 Fax: 212/629-7328

www.policylink.org

Bridging the Organizational Divide: To w a rd a Comprehensive A … · 2014-03-03 · Bridging the...

Documents

Transcript of Bridging the Organizational Divide: To w a rd a Comprehensive A … · 2014-03-03 · Bridging the...