Thoughts on my Experience with Austin CTCs

by Tedd Holladay

I almost don't know where to start in reflecting about my experience in Lodis Rhodes' Policy Research Project "Evaluating Community Technology Centers." I think through the course of a class like this one tends to lose perspective just a bit, getting swallowed up in the day-to-day tasks of researching and reporting. This was a huge project, and I feel like it was a qualified success. I gained a great deal of insight into issues ranging from telecommunications policy, the role of technology in education, the importance and ability of non-profit community-based organizations to support struggling communities, the real impacts of poverty and discrimination on individual people, and the capacities of individuals to transcend such inequalities and barriers. Our research has been important to me in clarifying where my personal commitments and interests lie. It has provided me with thoughts about how I will address the important issues facing American society when I get out of school.

More importantly, I think the very public nature of our research has been important, and I credit Dr. Rhodes for insisting on this approach. It is gratifying to know that our project will not sit on a library shelf, viewed by only a select few people. Our research was conducted and presented with an orientation toward the public. It's a strong temptation in doing intellectual work to be internally focused, and our project continually strove to engage those outside our class. I guess that's the essence of participatory action research. I can honestly say that I learned more about the challenges and opportunities of community technology centers through my interactions, conversations, and observations of the staff at Wired for Youth and River City Youth than through anything I read. I hope that my research and feedback will be a fraction as helpful to those and other community activists as their help was to me.

I should not ignore the fact that I leave this project with many more questions than answers. The primary question that bothers me to no end is the wisdom of using small, independent, and decentralized community based organizations as the paradigm for the development of ailing communities. It's abundantly clear that Wired for Youth, River City Youth, and the other CTCs we looked at are improving the quality of life for individuals in East and South Austin. The smiling faces of the children who attend the programs are testament to that fact. As demonstrated through our CTC Profiles and our report of an "ideal CTC," Austin-are public access centers increasing the technological, economic, and social capacities of individuals in Austin neighborhoods. That much is clear.

What is less clear is the extent to which these Community Technology Centers can form as the basis of a new progressive movement in the United States. By their very nature, local initiatives are piecemeal in their approach to fighting poverty and injustice. Our research surrounding the theory of social capital indicates that our CTCs were not effective at generating the cross-community alliances and bridges that would be required for a broad movement to attack injustice and inequality in Austin, much less across the entire nation. I recognize that this type of awareness or goal is too much to ask of an individual community-based organization. That may, in fact, be the essence of the problem. Community-based organizations are too busy serving their program participants, training their staff and volunteers, searching for funding, and trying to stay afloat to create the kinds of cross-community social capital needed to create a broad-based community revitalization movement.

All of this is not to discredit the work that community-based organizations do in urban areas. It simply underscores the observation that the work of community activists and advocates must be supported by committed progressives willing to fight for the empowerment and development of underserved populations. And this realization too, cuts both ways: local and national political activists and actors must be tied to their communities, to make sure that they support the work of institutions and individuals striving to improve the capacities of poor people. Too often, progressive, middle-class activists have worked in isolation from the communities they purport to represent. This was not the case during the civil rights movement, and we would do well to take some lessons from that history. When it comes to politics and community development, it can't be either/or. It must be both.

When I think about my ideal CTC, I imagine it would look a little different from the ideal CTC of each of my class members. I think my CTC would be run by an executive director as savvy as Mona Gonzales from the River City Youth Foundation. It would also be staffed by individuals like Joanna Nigrelli and Michele Gorman of Wired for Youth who are caring, intelligent, and committed to the growth of their participants. It would provide participants with the opportunity to learn about the computer and experiment with technology. But my ideal CTC would also host small concerts on the weekend by local hip hop and rock music artists in order to reach out to other young people. Evening poetry readings and jazz showcases would demonstrate the fun of social interaction and cultural empowerment. I would provide a public space for community activists to talk about the need for a universal living wage, protection for immigrant workers, women's self defense, or whatever other issues the members of my community feels is important to its interests. And my ideal CTC would have kids piled in groups of 4 around each computer, laughing and pointing at the screen, playing Super Mario Brothers, happy to have a place where they could come after the end of a school day.