skip navigation
Evaluating Community Technology Centers
Picture of children using computer

Home

Our Theory

CTC Toolkit

Access in Austin

Digital Divide In Context

Research Activities

Our Thanks

About Us

This Site Is Accessible

An Ideal CTC: Strategies for Community Development from Austin Community Technology Centers

Comprehensive Programming


A community-based organization with comprehensive programming will be more effective at developing a sophisticated level of skills, personal and professional relationships, and resources among the community members it serves. This requires the CTC to take a holistic approach, specifically one where the CTC director and staff take seriously the diverse strengths and needs of a community. The CTC must work to remove barriers to development as much as it works to increase development opportunities. The CTC should also actively recruit a wide variety of community members and participants to enhance the quality of human networks within the organization. When an organization's activities are predicated on a true understanding of the community, a holistic experience will increase participants' economic, social, and physical well-being.


An ideal CTC would offer programs beyond computer instruction that meet participant needs and remove barriers to development.

Many CTCs in Austin began as something other than a community technology center. From parenting classes to home buying courses to after school meal programs, each of these organizations have demonstrated a clear understanding of what their participants need to build capacity in their respective neighborhoods. Without these programs, people and communities cannot develop to their full potential.

Assets we observed:

  • Austin Learning Academy and Tech Tots at ABC focus on building capacity in entire families.
  • Foundation Communities offers technology education in the context of classes in ESL, GED preparation, homebuyer education, money management, and after-school programs that increase residents' well-being and choices.
  • American YouthWorks and RCYF provides programs for youth that address barriers to learning, such as substance abuse counseling at AYW and a meal program at RCYF.
  • Austin Eastside Story provides a meal for families when they pick up their child at the after-school program.

Barriers CTCs face:

Some CTCs are experiencing difficulty in proceeding with comprehensive programming initiatives due to lack of resources. For example, Tech Tots is having trouble recruiting Hispanic mentors who are familiar with participants' language and culture. CTCs may also not be aware that certain community members cannot participate in the center's programs because barriers are present.


An ideal CTC would have resources and knowledge available to include participants, volunteers, and staff with special needs.

Including people with disabilities is crucial to fulfill the promise of public access to technology. Rates of disability are higher in communities of color and low-income communities, and folks with disabilities in these groups may not be in contact with organizations that serve the disability community. An ideal CTC would recognize that these people are a valuable part of the community and encourage them to contribute to community development.

Assets we observed:

  • Bedichek's community technology center incorporated accessibility issues into their requests for funding, thus allowing them to purchases equipment that benefits students with hearing and visual disabilities.
  • Reverend Carrington at Sweet Home has worked with participants who have visual disabilities. JAWS, a screen reading program, is installed in the computer lab.

Barriers CTCs face:

CTCs may believe that providing access for people with disabilities is difficult and requires a large initial investment. They may not know where to go for training in selection of adaptive technology. Much of the early grant funding from the Texas TIF (Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund) and federal agencies was given without any guidance to organizations about how to incorporate accessibility.


An ideal CTC would do testing and re-testing of the organization's assumptions about the participants served and what their needs are.

Assets we observed:

  • ALA has built in mechanisms for participant feedback, such as their biannual surveys.
  • Some programs have responded to more immediate needs. The staff at Tech Tots made immediate adjustments to materials and training sessions in response to the unexpected needs of their native Spanish-speaking participants.

Barriers CTCs face:

CTCs may be dependent upon one individual or a small group of committed participants to assess participants' needs.


Future Research

Our participatory research approach permitted each of us to observe and sometimes actually take part in the programs that CTCs offer their participants. Our engagement allowed us to come away with substantive qualitative data to include in our research findings. Some of the research tools we employed were effective for obtaining information, but suggest continuing to seek alternative ways to increase the validity and reliability of the findings. Our participant and staff surveys examined self-report of skills and knowledge before and after participating in CTC programs, as well as how programs were developed. Future research designs may include more questions that investigate and identify barriers that may affect skill and knowledge outcomes, and may impede program development. Furthermore, increased interaction with the participants and staff would have added to the content validity of our questionnaires. Finally, more research is needed in the area of special needs. This population is often ignored in the discussion of inclusionary practices regarding technology programs for the disenfranchised.

continue

More info

Working Hypothesis about Comprehensive Programming

Download the complete report: An Ideal CTC (Microsoft Word)

Read the report online:


this page last updated
May 15, 2002