Community Technology Centers:

• Types of users;
• Numbers of users;
• Lists of equipment and services;
• Governing/organizational structure;
• Budgets/funding;
• Types and numbers of staff;
• Fees charged.

It was difficult to know going into these case studies whether or not they would truly be "models" in the sense that they deserve widespread emulation. However, that was not the point. Since community technology centers are so rare, it is important to simply provide a more complete picture of what one looks like. The two models that this chapter presents represent two different kinds of rural communities and two different kinds of centers. One is a technology learning center in a small rural Nebraska city that prides itself on being "the Middle of Nowhere" (Richards 1994). The other is a telecommuting center serving a rapidly growing exurban region in Virginia south of Washington, D. C.

The technology center is an extension of the non-technological information provision mission of the NCDC. The focus of the NCDC is providing information, especially on economic and community development, to the community. The NCDC receives support and funding from the City of Ainsworth, the city school system, the chamber of commerce, Brown County, the County lodging commission, and the local community college (City of Ainsworth 1993). The formal mission and planning of the NCDC is oriented toward serving businesses in the region (North Central Development Center Technology Committee 1994; City of Ainsworth 1993). However, in practice, the NCDC has acted in a broader fashion, providing a focus for a variety of community development ideas (such as a recycling station) and proving computer access to a variety of people in the community.

The initiative for the NCDC began approximately in 1992 with a local meeting of people concerned about the unfavorable economic condition of the region. The NCDC was incorporated in March 1993, but was slow in getting off its feet. It secured a $52,000 CDBG (Community Development Block Grant in 1993, and a somewhat greater amount of regional matching funds to last for two years for the continued development of the NCDC and the development of a technology center (Lowe 1995b; City of Ainsworth 1993). Still, for the first year of the grant no technology center had been developed, and the office of the Center was at first in a back room of a local bank. These factors led to a low level of utilization of the center. In November 1993, the Center bought a new office space on the main street of Ainsworth, increasing visibility and usage of the center. Another key development was the organization of a separate Technology Committee . This committee was important to getting the Technology Center moving because these people had both technical knowledge that enabled them to know what needed to be done to set up the center, and a strong personal interest in seeing the technology center developed. The Technology Center opened in July 1994.

There are several important observations to make about the budget of the NCDC. First, it is relatively small. To put it in perspective, the one-year cost of the NCDC with its technology center would amount to about three percent of the fiscal year 1993 budget of Erving, Massachusetts (Massachusetts Department of Revenue 1994). Erving had a smaller 1990 population than Ainsworth--1372 vs. 1870--(U. S. Census Bureau 1992). It is important to note in this comparison both that the NCDC serves a larger area than only Ainsworth and that Ainsworth itself only contributed a fraction of the total financial support for the center. Although technology is perceived as expensive, Ainsworth provides an example of a small town doing a technology center on a modest budget. Second, the greatest expense in the budget of the center is people (staff), not technology.

The Technology Committee has struggled with how to sustain the effort of the Center after the end of the CDBG. To date, it has only come up with partial and potential solutions. After the first hour of computer training, the Technology Center charges $25/hour (North Central Development Center Technology Committee 1994). Lowe felt that it would be possible to obtain surplus computers from a source such as the state, but having only one staff person, there has not been time to go after them. While the CDBG no doubt was vital in getting the Technology Center off the ground, the situation illustrates the need for thoughtful planning for community technology centers receiving large up-front subsidies.

Another resource for the Technology Center has been donated equipment. The Center has two computers primarily available for public use. (Another is primarily used by Lowe). One of these was purchased, while another was loaned by a local computer dealer, along with 40 free hours of training time (North Central Development Center Technology Committee 1994). Not coincidentally, this dealer is also the chair of the Technology Committee, and the husband of the Executive Director. Several of the trainers at the Center have also been Committee members. There are obvious conflict-of-interest issues to the promotion of the dealer's products and the compensation paid to trainers, which the Committee has recognized (North Central Development Center Technology Committee 1994). At the same time, it is difficult to argue that these conflicts have done any real harm. In fact, the Technology Center has benefited from the loaned equipment, and businesses, trainers, and the Center all benefit from the promotion of computer usage. Moreover, the small size of the community provides few alternatives to these overlapping roles. This situation suggests that the collaboration of non-profits and for-profits may be necessary and even desirable in the promotion of information and communication technology in rural areas.

The computers at the Technology Center are connected to a laser printer and an ink jet printer. Each computer has a modem, and one has a CD-ROM. The computers run a wide variety of software, including word processing, spreadsheet, accounting, an encyclopedia program, a specialty weed-management program, and some on-line services. However, an important issue with the on-line services has been the cost of long-distance telephone service and the cost of acquiring a separate modem line.

Interestingly, there are other nearby public computer and telecommunications resources, but they are not coordinated with the NCDC's technology center offerings. For example, both Educational Service Unit (ESU)[2], (which is only a block south of the NCDC) and the local high school have Internet access. However, policies prohibit the sharing of these access points for non-educational uses. The public library, which is also only a block away, has video conferencing facilities.

The use of the Technology Center has been modest over its first months of operation, but recently has picked up dramatically. The Center is usually open during normal business hours, and use of the computers is nominally by appointment. It is not a problem to drop in, though most people call ahead. Over the first seven months of operation there were 38 occasions of use on-site logged in by 26 different individuals (North Central Development Center 1994-95). At least five of these users went on to buy a computer of their own after using the Center. However, the Technology Center has recently been able to expand its offerings with the temporary loan of ten laptop computers from the community college. With these, the Technology Center has begun offering Introduction to Computers and Introduction to Internet classes. The first two sessions, offered March 6, 1995, had a combined enrollment of 37 people, or almost as many people who had logged in over the whole period of the Technology Center's operation. A factor which may have been important was not only that the technology center offered the classes, but that they were publicized through the continuing education division of the local community college. Based on the response to the classes, it seems reasonable to say that the day-to-day use arrangements at the technology center have not completely tapped into the full range of potential users.

The NCDC illustrates one way that a technology center can be a reality in small rural community without a high concentration of technical expertise. It has mixed providing information about computers and telecommunications with providing other needed information on community and economic development issues; it has necessarily mixed non-profit and for-profit interests; and it has avoided drawing too fine a line between economic and community development.

In the Fredericksburg Area, the telecommuting center has been open since the spring of 1994 and is managed by the Rappahannock Area Development Commission (RADCO), a state of Virginia regional planning district commission made up of elected and appointed officials (Thomas 1995b). RADCO serves a region made up of Spotsylvania, King George, Stafford, and Caroline Counties, and the City of Fredericksburg. The city had a 1990 population of 19,027 (U. S. Bureau of the Census 1992), and the region had a 1990 population of 170,000 people, up from 118,000 in 1980 (Thomas 1995b).

The Fredericksburg region has many characteristics of an exurban region that is undergoing suburbanization and urbanization. It has undergone a rapid rate of growth. However, Thomas stated that ten minutes outside of downtown Fredericksburg there is still evidence of a rural landscape--farmland, horses, and cows. Still, she described it as being a bedroom community for Washington, there currently being many more residents than jobs. The reason she gave for the region's high growth rate was its high quality of life and lower housing prices, compared to areas closer to Washington. The area has attracted a large number of highly-educated people. She stated that the residents so valued the quality of life in the Fredericksburg region that they wanted to stay there despite the disadvantages of round-trip commutes between three and six hours on the road per day, and were open to creative solutions that would allow them to do so. In her opinion, the use of telecommuting as an emergency solution to traffic problems created by the Northridge earthquake in southern California created a dramatic demonstration of what might be possible in the Washington area (Thomas 1995b).

The push to create the Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center was a combination of local and federal initiative. The center is a part of the U. S. General Services Administration's Interagency Telecommuting Pilot Project for federal employees (Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center 1995). There are multiple motivations for the implementation of the telecommuting program in the Washington area, including compliance with clean air regulation compliance, the high cost of office space in Washington, alleviation of traffic congestion, and the stimulation of civic involvement in bedroom communities. However, the primary reason given for implementing the program is improved quality of life for the workers (Thomas 1995b; U. S. General Services Administration 1995, 4). An important factor in creating this program was the efforts of congressmen from the congressional districts of northern Virginia and southern Maryland, districts which have a high concentration of federal employees working in and around Washington, D. C. For example, Thomas estimated that approximately one third of the workforce in the region served by the center either worked for the federal government or private employers in Washington or its immediately surrounding suburbs. These constituents put pressure not only on their congressman, but also their local officials to do something to help. The result was federal legislation creating the telecommuting program, and the cooperation of local agencies in implementing it (Thomas 1995b).

Three levels of government have contributed to the planning and operation of the Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center, making the program less burdensome on any one. The General Services Administration (GSA) did the design and layout of the facility, as well as providing the subsidy. RADCO came up with the center's operating plan. GSA has also marketed the program to departments and agencies in the federal government (Thomas 1995b). The Virginia Department of Information Technology has provided technical advice and assistance to RADCO in acquiring computers and telecommunications services (Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center 1995; U. S. General Services Administration 1995, 9).

The equipment at the center allows workers to do the work they would do in their central office, and still stay in communication with that office (Thomas 1995b). Services at the center include desktop video teleconferencing (Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center 1995). The center has a pool of modems, and runs more than a dozen different federal agency communications programs. Currently the center does not provide a direct Internet connection through the center's server because of the cost, but intends to in the future (Thomas 1995b).

Employees from a wide variety of federal agencies use the center. Agencies pay a monthly fee of $100 per workstation, an amount which reflects the subsidy that the center currently receives (U. S. General Services Administration 1995, 7). Thomas described the typical employee who worked at the center as long-term, highly respected, and highly responsible. She said that most were married with children, and have been at their jobs for 8-15 years. Eighty-five percent have received "excellent" performance ratings, a factor that Thomas called critical to the success of telecommuting. They range from a clerk-typist to a program director, but most are mid-to high-level employees (Thomas 1995b).

Thomas stated that the biggest hindrance to the center so far has been managers who have been reluctant to let their employees work at a remote site. She indicated that education in methods of remote management has been a tool in overcoming this barrier, and that the federal government has been offering seminars on just such topics (Thomas 1995b).

The federal subsidy funding for the pilot sites will expire in September 1996. At that time federal agencies will continue to participate in the program, but will be charged a market rate. The centers are developing business plans in anticipation of this event. Thomas feels that diversification will be important in continuing the existence of the Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center. One form of diversification will be offering telecommuting services to a variety of state government agencies and private employers, although Thomas anticipates the federal government remaining the largest user of the center. RADCO is also in favor of making the center more of a resource to the community. Some uses that are being considered are fee-for-service video teleconferencing, a remote classroom for a community college, evening adult education classes, a business incubator, public Internet access, and providing small businesses with access to commercial electronic information. Thomas feels that the exposure, marketing and support for telecommuting within the federal government has given the center a stronger base on which to build this future diversification (Thomas 1995b). The evolution of this telecommuting center in the direction of a mixed-use community technology center provides an example of how multiple users can strengthen a telecenter.

The General Services Administration has judged the pilot telecommuting center project to be a success (U. S. General Services Administration 1995, 6). Requests for workstations are increasing throughout the federal telecommuting initiative (U. S. General Services Administration 1995, 6). Currently the Fredericksburg center is at approximately seventy-five percent capacity, and RADCO is in the process of planning a second center, having 20 more workstations, and including a scanner and color printer requested by workers (Thomas 1995b). The center has appeared to benefit from many factors. These include: a period of subsidy, a large anchor from the federal government, and a system of assistance and support from GSA upon which to draw. It also appears to be successful because it meets a clear need expressed by users who form a large portion of the population in the region. These users also have the skills needed to use the equipment at the center.

While both centers had only one staff person, one of the key advantages that the Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center has had is access to a more well-developed support network. Many community technology centers in rural areas, faced with limited local resources and expertise, could benefit from being a part of a network of similar centers, sharing information, ideas, and collectively developing support.

There are also similarities between the two case studies. Both centers have received an up-front subsidy and are currently making plans for how to survive without one. Both are regional efforts, and both centers are evolving beyond their original focus. In the case of the NCDC Technology Center, it is from a one-on-one training center towards offering classes as well. The Fredericksburg Regional Telecommuting Center is planning to transform itself from a telecommuting center to a mixed-use technology center.

Previous section

Next section

Table of Contents

Reference list

CRM Home Page

UMass Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning

Last updated July 22, 1995
by Christopher J. Campbell

© Copyright 1995 Center for Rural Massachusetts

E-mail comments to CRM at:

Please e-mail us if you establish links to this page or any of our other pages. This will allow us to keep you informed (to the best of our ability) of changes.