Angela Siefer

In recent years, government agencies, private foundations, and community-based organizations have increasingly sought to understand how programs that promote digital inclusion lead to social and economic outcomes for individuals, programs, and communities. This push to measure outcomes has been driven, in part, by a larger trend to ensure that dollars are being used efficiently to improve lives rather than simply to deliver services. A new report, published by Benton Foundation, describes the challenges facing community-based organizations and other key stakeholders in using outcomes-based evaluation to measure the success of their digital inclusion programs and offers recommendations toward addressing these shared barriers. This new research builds off Dr. Colin Rhinesmith’s Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Broadband Adoption Initiatives, released in early 2016. That report identified the core offerings of digital inclusion organizations – from providing low-cost broadband, and the devices to connect to it, while helping new broadband adopters gain the skills they need to navigate the Internet and online services. In this national study of digital inclusion organizations, Dr. Rhinesmith also noted that most of the digital inclusion organizations that participated in this study did not have outcomes-based evaluation frameworks. However, all recognized the importance of having them. This finding led us to conduct this deeper research on the challenges surrounding outcomes-based evaluation. Twenty-some years ago community technology centers offered training and public access to computers (a few with Internet access). Today we have digital inclusion programs provided by community-based organizations, libraries, and local government. The purpose twenty years ago was not the technology but what one could do with it. The same is true today. The difference is that we are now trying to clearly define the outcomes of access and use of the technology. What we do with the technology and the outcomes will continue to evolve as the technology evolves.

Like most public libraries across the United States, Multnomah County Library (MCL) has long provided access to public computers, the Internet (through Wi-Fi), and personalized training to the community it serves. MCL has leveraged grants and partnerships to provide tailored services to community members with low technology literacy and few resources. The library is a primary partner in a collaborative, regional digital inclusion effort that includes:1) documenting community needs, 2) increasing access to low-cost devices and broadband service, and 3) delivering training where it’s needed most. In recent years, the library has focused increasingly on technology-related service in languages other than English, including Spanish, Russian, Vietnamese and Chinese. Multnomah County Library is the largest provider of free broadband access, equipment, and training in the greater Portland area. MCL will host approximately two million free Wi-Fi and public access computing sessions this year. The library also offers about 1,900 classes, open labs, and individual tutoring sessions each year to help people get online, use their devices, and build digital literacy skills.

[Commentary] The Internet is driving innovation in community and economic development, education, health care, and government services. But residential broadband adoption1 has stalled. Community anchor institutions (CAIs) are improving residential broadband adoption in several ways: providing digital literacy training, educating consumers about government programs to promote broadband adoption, leading community planning efforts, lending wireless “hot spots,” and, in some cases, providing wireless broadband services directly to consumers. For these efforts to have the greatest impact, however, policymakers must provide CAIs and their community partners with the right resources and incentives. Solutions should be locally customized to meet the needs of specific populations.

[Angela Siefer is the Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance]

[Commentary] In November 2016 we launched Digital Inclusion Trailblazers, a catalog of local, state, and national digital inclusion leadership. This is the first public inventory of local government initiatives promoting digital literacy and broadband access for underserved residents. NDIA and Mobile Citizen developed Digital Inclusion Trailblazers as an advocacy tool. It provides a handy database of examples and contacts for communities interested in taking similar steps themselves. I am pleased to present to you articles from seven of our Digital Inclusion Trailblazers: Austin (TX), Boston (MA), Kansas City (MO), Portland (OR), Raleigh (NC), San Antonio (TX), and San Francisco (CA).
[Angela Siefer is director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.]

The Ashbury Senior Community Computer Center (ASC3) is a community-based organization which provides technology training and low-cost home internet service. ASC3 serves four Cleveland neighborhoods (Glenville, Forest Hills, South Collinwood and East Cleveland) -- and anyone else who requests their services. These neighborhoods are economically-diverse and family-oriented with a strong representation of older, African-American adults and Case Western Reserve University students. The draw of important churches in these neighborhoods brings in traffic from elsewhere in Cleveland. All four neighborhoods have low home broadband adoption rates. Wanda Davis and her family wanted to strengthen their community. They had two family businesses they needed to close, but they owned the property and realized there was an opportunity to create a community center. Ms. Davis said, “As we closed the hardware store and deli, wanted to make sure what we left was long standing and supportive of the community. The purpose has always been about impact.”
[Siefer is the Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance]

The Federal Communications Commission's March 31, 2016 Order that modernized Lifeline to include broadband service included references to the FCC working with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) when implementing the National Verifier (an online platform that will verify eligibility) "to provide Lifeline providers with guidance and procedures for creating aggregation projects and for enrolling subscribers in aggregation projects".

A footnote on page 55 of the Order states "USAC will not fund consumer outreach efforts but may provide administration and expertise to community-based organizations, housing associations, and institutions seeking to coordinate the aggregation of benefits." The National Verifier will not be ready for multiple years. Until then, Internet Service Providers of Lifeline Broadband and community-based organizations, housing associations and institutions may develop agreements to cooperatively aggregate eligible households of Lifeline Broadband service.

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance releases its new list of "The Top 25 Worst Connected U.S. Cities, 2015". Our rankings for 2015 are based on recently released Census data on home access to fixed broadband Internet services. This includes wireline broadband technologies (cable Internet, DSL, fiber to the premises) as well as satellite and "fixed wireless" technologies. It does not include 3G and 4G mobile devices like smartphones, or non-broadband connections like dial-up modems.

At the top of 2015's Worst Connected is Detroit (MI), where a full 54% (!) of all households still didn't have fixed broadband connections in 2015. Second on the list was Brownsville (TX) at 52%, followed closely by Cleveland (OH) at 48%, Memphis (TN) at 47%, and Shreveport (LA) and Laredo (TX) at 45%.

[Commentary] In May 2016, digital inclusion practitioners, advocates, academics, Internet service providers, and policymakers gathered in Kansas City at Net Inclusion: The National Digital Inclusion Summit and a funny thing happened on our way to the library: we discovered we were speaking different languages. We were gathered to discuss current and potential local, state, and federal policies aimed at increasing digital equity. But we realized there were a number of working definitions of ‘digital equity’ and ‘digital inclusion’ being used by summit attendees. In the weeks since meeting face-to-face in KC, a working group of us affiliated with the National Digital Inclusion Alliance began meeting online in an attempt to reach consensus definitions for these terms. After many discussions the working group came to think of “digital equity” as the goal – and “digital inclusion” as the strategy to reach the goal.
[Angela Siefer is the Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance]

The Federal Communications Commission has recently tasked its Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau with the development of a plan to identify and work to address non-price related barriers to digital inclusion. Here, we share strategies that local/regional governments can implement in their digital equity planning process. We are currently investigating the digital equity planning processes in Austin (TX), Portland (OR), and Seattle (WA) -- three US cities with their own established stand-alone plans. We have interviewed local government officials and other key stakeholders as well as reviewed city-level policy and planning documents. Based on our preliminary examination of the digital equity plans and through our own interviews with local policymakers, we offer these recommendations:
Local governments should employ a central planning and coordination office with legitimate authority to facilitate digital equity planning.
Local planners should ensure that traditionally-excluded groups are included in digital equity planning.
Local decision-makers should use research from a variety of sources to inform digital equity planning.
We offer these preliminary findings and recommendations as key insights to assist local, state, and federal policymakers in creating effective digital equity plans.

[Dr Brandon Brooks is an Assistant Professor of Digital Media Studies in the James L. Knight School of Communication at Queens University of Charlotte. Dr Colin Rhinesmith conducts original Benton research and is an assistant professor in the School of Library and Information Science at Simmons College and a faculty associate with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Angela Siefer is the Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA).]