Summer-Fall 2001

Since the last edition of the Community Technology Review, there has been an exciting period of activity in which community technology access has emerged as a policy issue at the national, state, and local level. The increased national focus on community technology comes attendant with heated debates around the existence and true extent of “digital divides” and perceived solutions around the gaps and disparity of access to tools, training, knowledge, and opportunities to use technology for social, economic, and civic participation.

Criticisms around digital divide elimination efforts are largely rooted in the belief that the problem, if it indeed exists, has been distorted out of proportion. We hear that the digital divide has wrongly been cast as one of race, age, gender, and income, when it is instead one around educational ability and literacy, or perceived need and relevance to the lives of citizens. We hear that since the private sector has already launched a number of new and existing initiatives and collaborations, addressing perceived gaps in technology access, government should not spend money on similar efforts. It is said that no one can force people to want technology access—it must be desired, and therefore acquired, by individuals who truly want it. As such, the digital divide is solved by simply letting the producers of technology continue to make technology available, and letting people adopt it as they will.

Critics, however, overlook one simple fact: the “digital divide” is about access to knowledge, education, opportunity, choice and control, so that underrepresented voices have presence and legitimacy in a society that is increasingly dependent on information and communications technology for every facet of social interaction and civic participation. The concepts embedded in digital divide policies will continue to play a major role in defining the policy goals and scope of community technology in all of its manifestations.

The policy framework of the Clinton Administration outlined both strong support and clear objectives for addressing community technology and digital divide activity. The federal U.S. Department of Education’s CTC program has grown from $10 million in fiscal year (FY) 1998, to $32.5 million in FY 1999, and $65 million in FY 2000. The new political environment, however, presents community technology advocates with a complicated picture. Competing proposals from Congress and the White House would either phase out the current CTC program in favor of a new effort at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or expand the current effort under the Department of Education to the status of an authorized program. A large number of education technology funding opportunities face proposed consolidation into block grants, and even funding for basic information infrastructure projects under the popular Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) faces severe restrictions in the current policy environment.

The Internet holds promise for enriching the lives and improving the circumstances of all Americans, by offering access to useful, quality information that meets individual and community needs—but those needs must be articulated and heeded. For all of the policy activity generated within Washington, DC, there is still too little corresponding activity at the local level, and too few community technology efforts are able to navigate the difficult application processes for existing federal funding opportunities. In order to continue to build momentum for community technology program funding, advocates need to direct their voices, and promote their activities, to decision makers on a regular basis. Only then can the constituency be seen, heard, and taken seriously politically.