An Ideal CTC
Strategies for Community Development from Austin
Community Technology Centers
Prepared by "Evaluating Community Technology Centers" Policy
Research Project at LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at
Austin
Spring 2002
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/rhodesprp/01_02/
Introduction
In September 2001, our research group embarked on a nine-month project to learn
how Austin community technology centers (CTCs) are working to provide public access
to technology at the neighborhood level. We identified this issue as timely for a number
of reasons. CTCs are community organizations that share many of the same assets and
liabilities as other organizations and are among the "newer" approaches to serving
communities. While technology is not the only solution to building community capacity,
it is certainly a form of communication on which our society is increasingly reliant in
daily life. And finally, the current presidential administration claims that the digital
divide has been eliminated, although 75% of the poorest Americans still lack access to
computers and the Internet.
Our knowledge about local efforts was based on the earlier, decentralized efforts
to promote equal access to information and communication tools (ICT), better known as
the Austin Access Model. Using the lessons from this model, earlier research and
established social theories, and fieldwork with local CTCs, we established five working
hypotheses that explain what we believe are the most critical elements of a CTC program
that contributes to individual and community development. Those elements are:
Organizational Vision and Community Ownership
Comprehensive Programming
Varied Learning Opportunities
Organizational Self-Reliance
Building Social Capital Within and Between Groups
These five components are what we identified early on as critical to the healthy
development of both CTC participants and the CTC's organizational capacity, with the
long-term goal of building capacity at the neighborhood level. With this theory in mind,
we embarked on our field research, working with the following Austin-area CTCs:
American YouthWorks C-Corps, Any Baby Can's Tech Tots Program, Austin
Eastside Story Foundation, Austin Learning Academy, Bedichek Community
School, Carver and Terrazas Libraries Wired For Youth Programs, Foundation
Communities Learning Centers at Sierra Ridge and Vintage Creek, Our Lady
Family Center / East Austin Media Lab, River City Youth Foundation, and Sweet
Home Missionary Baptist Church. The objective was to identify how organizations
were developing their respective programs and to determine to what extent the five
criteria above were relevant to these organizations.
Our involvement with these organizations went beyond observation. Some
researchers participated in programs as volunteers. Others served as resources for
organizations, providing information on how to obtain funding, where to refer individuals
for services not offered at their respective organization, and how to enhance volunteer
recruitment efforts.
These activities served multiple purposes. First, they helped researchers and
organization staff to establish a level of trust that increases the possibility for collecting
2
significant qualitative data. Second, by establishing a relationship with these centers, we
were able to listen and respond to what they identified as priorities for making their
centers work. The latter point is particularly important in the context of Universitysponsored research. While our research is grounded in academia, we do not see it as a
pursuit where we seek to customize the organizational behaviors of the CTCs to fit the
theory we developed. Rather, by working with these CTCs, we were able to re-think and
re-shape our early theories to better reflect the reality in which these organizations thrive.
What did we find?
Longevity and Vision. Not surprisingly, we found that the oldest organizations, such as
Austin Learning Academy, American YouthWorks, and River City Youth Foundation
had some of the most developed resources of trained staff, resources, and property.
These organizations also had diverse programming, ranging from workforce training to
meal programs. It cannot be overstated that time is a significant factor in the
development process of any organization. The leadership in these organizations
understand the importance of developing a vision for best serving their neighbors, and
have developed the flexibility to adapt to changing needs. From our perspective, the
ideal CTC would not only have flexibility, its leadership would have instituted ways to
test its assumptions about the community and its needs.
Multiple Points of Access. Researchers who worked with Austin Eastside Story
discovered that children who participated in their programs not only knew of other places
for gaining access to the Internet, but were strategic about where they went based on the
types of access they had at different sites. Our research re-affirmed past studies
conducted in the Austin community in concluding that the East Austin 11th and 12th
Streets corridor is the most developed area of a decentralized effort to ensure digital
access as laid out in the Austin Access Model.
Varied Learning Opportunities. All of the organizations to varying degrees understand
the importance of learning, and not just for participants. Learning opportunities for staff,
participants and their families are critical to building capacity in any community. The
types of learning that take place are also just as critical. Some organizations offered lowcost or free access to computers and the Internet. Some offered comprehensive
programming, from charter schools to workforce training to meal programs. We were
impressed with the quality of structured, supervised programs that already exist in Austin
and with the recognition by CTC staff that unstructured "tinkering" time is just as
important in the learning process.
While existing programs have demonstrated varying degrees of success, we have
theorized the next step that these highly developed programs may take to further enhance
capacity-building. What we have witnessed this year has ranged from open, unstructured
time on computers to workforce-based education and training. What we would hope to
see in the future is an expanded organizational effort to respond to how people learn as
well as what people learn. Our ideal CTC would have experienced, well-trained
3
educators who see programs as not only education and training, but also education and
schooling. What is the difference?
Education and training: A structured program where participants learn how to use
computer programs in a step-by-step approach, maybe using pre-existing templates. An
example would be students learning to use Microsoft Office by using a pre-existing
template to make a sign for an imaginary business. With no relevance to the student,
there is no learning beyond the basic computer commands it took to create the sign. In
short, education and training is learning to do what is already known and to solve
problems we already know how to solve.
Education and schooling: A project-based learning environment where problem-solving
skills and replace rote instruction. Education and schooling is learning that emphasizes
critical thinking and innovation to solve problems that still bedevil us. This vision would
have students working in groups to collectively design Christmas cards. They learn
through trial and error, with experienced instructors watching from a distance to
troubleshoot their efforts only when absolutely necessary. Students' creativity and
inquisitiveness drive the degree of complexity of the process. We realize not all students
will want to learn Adobe Photoshop after making Christmas cards. We also realize that
some students will want to do this, and it was this experience that opened an opportunity
where it did not exist before.
Types of Centers
Our research led us to conclude that CTCs traditionally emerge in three forms:
the low-cost access site; the human capital, or workforce, training site; and the
educational model site. We suggest a fourth model, our "ideal" model. This ideal CTC
incorporates some of the promising practices of the first three types, and incorporates
innovation, problem solving, and critical thinking into the learning process. It is these
additional elements, we argue, that will ensure true community capacity building in
neighborhoods served by these programs.
We recognize that there are barriers to development that incapacitate organization
growth. Merriam-Webster defines "ideal" as "existing as an archetypal idea." Our ideal
CTC is not a checklist to find where organizations fail. Rather, it is a way to integrate
and organize the "promising practices" of CTCs we have worked with and the principles
we learned from background research. It is a way to recognize the barriers to
development and identify solutions. And it can be used as a checklist for organizations
that want to improve by highlighting the most important factors that affect individual and
community development.
The following profiles, organized by our five criteria, serve as snapshots to some
of those barriers and to the creative and innovative solutions that we have identified in
existing CTCs.
4
An Ideal CTC: Summary
Vision and Community Ownership
Have volunteers and staff who are personally invested in the community.
Proactively incorporate community input.
See itself as an integrated part of the community.
Foster a sense of ownership in participants and other community members.
Give community members the power to make decisions.
Comprehensive Programming
Offer programs beyond computer instruction that meet participants' needs and remove
barriers to learning.
Have resources available to include participants, staff, and volunteers with special needs.
Do testing and re-testing of the organization's assumptions about the participants served
and what their needs are.
Learning Opportunities
Provide engaging and relevant content, encouraging participants to use the Internet for
benefits that make sense to them.
Have an open atmosphere in which teachers and students form supportive relationships to
enhance learning.
Provide a variety of programs at a variety of times.
Self-Reliance
Have permanence and control of location.
Maintain a diverse mix of funding sources by avoiding dependence on any single source.
Attract and retain qualified staff by providing opportunities for professional development
and continuing challenges that make the work interesting.
Encourage and develop volunteers as a resource for all areas of operation.
Have technology expertise available within the organization for troubleshooting,
repairing, and upgrading computer systems.
Social Capital
Be familiar with the other organizations in its area and be able to refer participants in
need of different services to other CBOs.
Form multiple partnerships with other CBOs.
Creates bonding between participants by encouraging them to work collaboratively.
Encourage participants to be aware of the world outside their community and solve
problems using resources available outside their normal sphere of activity.
Encourage participants to form strong ties to their community.
5
Vision and Community Ownership
A community-based organization's staff must have a clear vision of their
organization that sees the center as a member of its community. The center must
cultivate a sense of belonging in all visitors – the community must feel a sense of
ownership. A sense of vision and ownership can only be developed if the CTC is
familiar with and dedicated to community needs through a clear outline of objectives and
constant attention to changes in the community.
Developing an Ideal CTC
The ideal CTC would have volunteers and staff who are personally invested in the
community.
Staff members and volunteers would either live in that neighborhood or actively
participate in area events and community life. Employee and volunteer familiarity with
the neighborhood is paramount to creating an organization that ranks the needs of the
neighborhood and cultivates relationships between participants and staff.
Assets we observed:
 RCYF and United Way Tech Tots staff spend both personal and professional time in
the communities where they work.
 RCYF employees visit area churches, family residences and work with area public
schools.
 Reverend Carrington at Sweet Home lives next to the church that houses the
technology program.
Barriers CTCs face:
To have staff with specialized skills, CTCs may have to hire individuals not familiar with
that area. Although this is not a problem initially, it becomes an issue when staff
members do not then work to familiarize themselves and get involved with that particular
community.
The ideal CTC would proactively incorporate community input into decisions.
A regular feedback mechanism such as a survey or interview is important to ensuring that
the organization consistently responds to community needs and concerns.
Assets we observed:
 The Tech Tots program at ABC uses a sophisticated feedback survey at different
stages throughout the participants’ involvement.
 ALA continually surveys participants and adds programs based on their responses.
6
Barriers CTCs face:
CTCs without feedback mechanisms in place run the risk of not responding effectively to
community desires and changes in need. CTCs who are dependent on major funders with
specific requirements may not be able to adjust programs to meet community needs.
The ideal CTC sees itself as an integrated part of the community.
A formal mission statement as well as a consistent plan to keep all learning opportunities
connected to community needs is crucial. Community members should be aware of the
organization, its location, and its programs.
Assets we observed:
 Sweet Home's technology facility is integrated into the congregation because the
Reverend runs the CTC.
 RCYF was created with the explicit goal to establish a "safe place" for kids within its
targeted community.
 CTCs such as Sweet Home, Austin Eastside Story, RCYF, and Foundation
Communities were all established to directly serve the neighborhoods in which they
reside.
 Austin Eastside Story was initially created to provide after-school care and expose
children to technology, but they created the Digital Workforce Academy to meet
adult needs when the community requested job skills training.
Barriers CTCs face:
Lack of mutual understanding between participants and staff. Staff members are not
given enough time or training and education to address the needs of participants.
CTCs that focus solely on technology skills can miss out on opportunities to meet
community needs.
The ideal CTC would foster a sense of ownership in participants and other
community members.
Visitors come to the center to learn and to connect with other community members.
Participants are active in constructing the identity of the center. Simply put, participants
believe the organization is their own.
Assets we observed:
 Austin Learning Academy participants are currently producing information and
cultural content for ALA’s website.
 Wired for Youth participants had the opportunity to name a new initiative targeted
towards young women.
 American YouthWorks is located downtown to create a neutral territory where
students of all ethnic backgrounds can feel comfortable and claim the space as their
own.
7
Barriers CTCs face:
An absence of partnership between the CTC and community members. CTCs that do not
control the space where their program is offered cannot offer as many opportunities to
"claim" the organization.
The ideal CTC would give community members the power to make decisions.
Active community participation and involvement from the board of directors to the
volunteer level is important to assuring individuals feel a sense of ownership.
Assets we observed:
 American YouthWorks depends on student input and uses their Student Policy
Council to determine specific community projects to pursue.
 Wired For Youth has actively sought the input of students in the direction the
program has taken. Their Youth Advisory Council meets on the first Friday of each
month to decide which programs will be offered.
 Foundation Communities has residents on the board of directors and includes them in
program planning.
Barriers CTCs face:
CTC staff and participants are not familiar with management staff and therefore are not
familiar with how to affect the CTC and its operations. Board members selected for the
resources they bring to the organization may exclude participants. Use of only external
volunteers leaves out community members.
Future Research
Observations about vision and community ownership were gathered by all
members of the research team through staff and executive director interviews, as well as
during time spent in the centers. However, constructs to gauge if an organization
exhibited vision and planning in its efforts, and if community members felt they owned
the organization, were not sufficiently explicit in survey questions. Though we saw
numerous examples of how strong vision and ownership increased community
development, our survey questions focused on the organization’s relationship with the
community. We did not collect information very well about the overall goals and plan of
the CTCs we worked with.
8
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.
Developing an Ideal CTC
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.
9
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
10
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.
11
Learning Opportunities
A community-based organization that provides a variety of learning opportunities
is most effective at developing community competence. Communities have diverse
needs and interests that stem beyond technology, and individuals have different learning
styles. CTCs that provide different kinds of classes and activities in a holistic
environment are best at meeting the needs of all participants and the community as a
whole.
Developing an Ideal CTC
An ideal CTC provides engaging and relevant content, encouraging participants to
use the Internet for benefits that make sense to them.
Community members do not always know what computers have to offer that will be
meaningful in their lives. When they get online, inappropriate or useless content can be a
frustrating experience. An ideal CTC makes connections for participants and assists
them in finding out what the computer can do that can help them communicate, build,
learn, and grow.
Assets we observed:
 Our Lady's technology initiative began when participants expressed a desire to learn
how to communicate with far away family members using email.
 Austin Learning Academy students interact with published authors on-line and
engage in Question and Answer sessions with them, then create their own work and
share it with family members.
 The Tech Tots program at Any Baby Can gives children access to educational
software designed for their age group.
 Foundation Communities started a special outreach program for Spanish-speaking
participants when they discovered many residents thought the Internet was only in
English.
 American YouthWorks participants engage in service learning projects that directly
benefit their communities, such as building websites for local community
organizations.
 River City Youth Foundation participants are creating family trees for a collaborative
project with PBS.
Barriers CTCs face:
Some centers have inconsistent Internet connections and old computers making
computer-use frustrating. Some CTCs do not have staff or volunteers capable of helping
students with advanced on the computers. CTCs may be tied to a specific curriculum
that participants do not find relevant. This diminishes the possibility of broadening the
horizons of the community through the use of technology.
12
An ideal CTC would have an open atmosphere in which teachers and students form
supportive relationships to enhance learning.
Students and teachers would actively engage in conversations about curriculum as well as
other aspects of life. Teachers would be involved in the community. The space would be
set up to promote student interaction. The center would encourage peer learning, as well
as free time for tinkering and developing analytical skills.
Assets we observed:
 At American YouthWorks, staff and participants have time to "reconnect" on a
regular basis as they work together on tasks other than class activities. This type of
flextime helps develop relationships outside of class.
 Our Lady Family Center maintains long-term relationships with participants and their
families. Students bring all sorts of queries to the center, from how to fill out tax
forms or open bank accounts, to the personal problems between parents and
adolescent children.
 One Learning Center at Foundation Communities has a site that offers an outstanding
example of how the set up of the lab can be conducive to increased student
interactions. Computers are lined up against the two longest walls in a rectangular
room, and a table/workspace stands in the middle of the room where participants can
work together on ideas. The teacher can teach and talk with the students with equal
efficiency from any place in the room.
Barriers CTCs face:
Closely knit communities in which teachers and students have strong relationships can
lead to limiting participation. The knowledge, sharing and solidarity created within the
CTC do not serve to expand the community. CTCs may have volunteers who are able to
teach classes for several weeks at a time, but who do not form personal relationships with
students.
An ideal CTC would provide a variety of programs at a variety of times.
All of the CTCs we looked at provide more than one type of technology program. These
ranged from adult technology and children’s programs to those focusing on acquiring
skills including classes in animation, graphics, and web design, as well as credit
counseling programs that incorporate internet research skills. Offering a variety of
programs means that participants with a variety of interests and learning styles can
become involved.
Assets we observed:
 ALA and American YouthWorks provide flexible curricula involving project-based
learning designed to interest students and help other community organizations.
 All of the CTCs studied provided some "free time" on the computer. Four of the
CTCs are open in the evenings and many others had flexible hours although they
were not designated official operating hours.
13

Wired for Youth excels at providing a variety of programs and times. Not only do
they offer a variety of classes and unstructured "free time", students can sign up for
one-on-one tutorials so that their more specific questions can be answered.
Barriers CTCs face:
CTCs that are inconsistent in their class times decrease long-term participant
commitments to programs. CTCs may have limited access to computers if they are using
other organizations' property, and this means students won't have as much time to work
out problems on their own. CTCs that offer only structured, formal classes miss the
opportunity to involve people in the community who don't learn well in that setting.
Future Research
A next step in our analysis would be to qualitatively study the kinds of
relationships that develop between students and staff and amongst students. Though we
were able to asses what CTCs offer, we were not able to fully address discrepancies
between program missions and practices or determine the kinds of learning and teaching
that are most conducive to increasing community competence. In a future study, we
would more time to be spent studying how teachers and students interact and what
students do during their "tinkering" times.
14
Self-Reliance
A community-based organization with diversified funding, ownership of capital,
and efficient use of resources is self-reliant. They can sustain their technology program
over time and in a particular location, allowing them to develop lasting relationships with
the community. Efficiency means more resources to deliver programs. Self-reliance
enables a CTC to develop the capacity of participants, staff, and the community.
An ideal CTC would have permanence and control of location.
Assets we observed:
 Foundation Communities, Sweet Home, and River City Youth Foundation all own
their own land and buildings. This helps them stabilize costs, enables them to make
desired changes to the property, and allows them to stay in one place or community
with which they have developed a relationship.
 Bedichek Community School has operated out of an AISD public school for 22 years.
Though it does not control the building, it is an institutionalized part of the location.
 Wired for Youth programs at Carver and Terrazas libraries are integrated into
government buildings and identified with those locations.
Barriers CTCs face:
Organizations that must rent space may be forced to relocate. Most organizations we
worked with had fairly permanent locations, so this was not a significant barrier for them.
An ideal CTC would maintain a diverse mix of funding sources by avoiding
dependence on any single source.
Assets we observed:
 American YouthWorks has been able to foresee shifts in funding and form new or
adjust existing programs to meet new funding requirements. They became a charter
school to get state funding for education programs they were already offering.
 Foundation Communities maintains funding independence because it receives rent
payments from residents. This funding source is stable and allows FC to focus on
mission when it seeks other funding.
Barriers CTCs face:
Many CTCs depend on single funding source for the majority of funding for their
technology program. CTCs may not have grantwriting expertise in house to pursue
funding diversification.
15
An ideal CTC would attract and retain qualified staff by providing opportunities
for professional development and continuing challenges that make the work
interesting.
Assets we observed:
 ALA offers regular continuing education and professional development opportunities
for teachers. They support the career advancement of their staff, even if it takes them
beyond ALA. This environment attracts high-quality staff members.
 American YouthWorks continually pushes the envelope to incorporate technology
into their programs. This gives technical staff a challenge and keeps them interested
in staying at YouthWorks.
Barriers CTCs face:
Costs prevent some CTCs from providing the professional development opportunities
that staff desire. Emphasis is placed more on the development of the participants than the
staff, not realizing that staff attrition and turnover will damage opportunities for
participants as well.
The ideal CTC would encourage and develop volunteers as a resource for all areas
of operation.
Assets we observed:
 Austin Eastside Story requires parents to participate as volunteers and utilizes many
of their previous participants as instructors. This lowers costs and helps them sustain
relationships with their participants beyond the end of class.
 River City Youth Foundation has also recently begun a membership program where
parents of participants give three hours of volunteer time a month to the organization.
Barriers CTCs face:
The resources volunteers provide are often unpredictable because they come and go.
Recruiting volunteers takes time, training, and follow-up. It can also be difficult to get
volunteers to commit to a long-term project.
The ideal CTC would have technology expertise available within the organization
for troubleshooting, repairing, and upgrading computer systems.
Assets we observed:
 ALA has a staff person on hand who can upgrade hardware and software, fix
computer-related problems, and add new technologies.
 American YouthWorks has technical staff at the headquarters, and both staff and
participants at C-Corps are capable of repairing and upgrading hardware and
software.
 Reverend Carrington of Sweet Home is a self-taught computer expert who can rebuild
and repair machines to maximize the number available in the lab.
16
Barriers CTCs face:
Many CTCs have uncertain schedules or funding for upgrading hardware and software.
Also, many depend on external sources to troubleshoot and repair technology, and that
can be expensive and unreliable. Repairs and upgrades that depend on volunteers can be
delayed.
Future Research
Questions about funding sources are fairly simple, but organizational use of
volunteers and efforts around staff retention are less so. Future research could expand on
what we explored by comparing different programs recruitment, management, and
retention of volunteers and the impact on each program. Some programs who do not
currently use many volunteers may not need them, or they may be missing a valuable
resource. Our surveys also focused strongly on professional development opportunities,
but not on other aspects of staff retention.
17
Social Capital
Community-based organizations that build social capital are more effective at
developing community competence. The disruptive effects of poverty, crime, and
structural racism manifested in substandard physical resources rob urban centers of the
inter-personal and inter-organizational networks that sustain community members. By
bringing together people with similar needs and diverse assets, CBOs create interactions
and relationships that for the bedrocks of successful community growth and development.
CBOs help individual participants by teaching them specific skills, but the most
effective way they can help the entire community is by teaching the value of
interconnectedness.
Developing an Ideal CTC
An ideal CTC would be familiar with the other organizations in its area and be able
to refer participants in need of different services to other CBOs.
Assets we observed:
 Austin Eastside Story has a social worker available to help participants find resources
in the area. Most participants are aware of other CBOS in their neighborhoods.
 ALA also has a social worker available to help participants connect with resources.
Barriers CTCs face:
Many CTC staff members indicated their wish to know more about other public access
programs in Austin, so that they could send participants with specific needs to other
programs. CTC operations, though, may consume so much time that it is difficult to
network with other organizations.
An ideal CTC would form multiple partnerships with other CBOs.
Assets we observed :
 Staff members at different Wired for Youth sites share ideas, resources, and
technological expertise.
 River City Youth collaborates with over 30 other community organizations in Austin,
often sharing professional development opportunities.
Barriers CTCs face:
Many of the centers we evaluated felt that collaborations with other organizations were
time consuming and used more resources than simply undertaking the project singlehandedly.
18
An ideal CTC would create bonding between participants by encouraging
participants to work collaboratively with each other.
Assets we observed:
 Participants at Bedichek frequently help each other by clarifying skills being taught in
class.
 Participants at ALA return as volunteers, forming bonds with the next generation of
participants.
 American YouthWorks members can work in teams to teach classes at CTCs, and
community projects are performed in groups.
 Kids at Foundation Communities after-school programs are encouraged to work and
play together on computers.
Barriers CTCs face:
CTCs who try to keep labs orderly by allowing only one person per computer discourage
relationship building and helping behavior. Structured curricula that focus on individual
projects may also reduce the chance to work collaboratively.
An ideal CTC would encourage participants to be aware of the world outside their
community, and to solve problems using resources available outside their normal
sphere of activity.
Assets we observed:
 Participants at Bedichek, Wired for Youth, and Any Baby Can report an increased
ability to find information online and to keep in touch with people far away.
 ALA participants interact with published authors online, asking them questions as
the students develop their own creative work.
 Wired for Youth librarians are developing and implementing programs that take
students into other neighborhoods to meet other WFY participants.
Barriers CTCs face:
CTCs that do not provide free time to explore online and restrict activities to class
assignments will not broaden participants' community awareness.
An ideal CTC would encourage its participants to form stronger ties to their
community.
Assets we observed
 Participants at the Carver and Terrazas libraries are more involved in community
events after spending time at the Wired for Youth program.
 Participants at Eastside Story also reported being more involved with the
community, and expressed the desire for "clubs" where they could explore
particular interests with other like-minded people.
 American YouthWorks charter school uses service learning projects where
students work within their communities to solve problems.
19
Barriers CTCs face
Centers that serve participants from wide geographic areas may find it hard to
encourage community ties. The concept of "community" is less clear at this
center, since participants come from different ones. Community ties are often
easier to talk about when everyone has the same community in mind.
Future Research
Presumably, by increasing a population’s social capital, that community
experiences expanded opportunities. Other factors besides the work of CBOs affects the
trajectory of the community, so attempts to identify these and measure those factors
should also be made. The most important measure of the opportunity and prospects for an
entity (CBO, individual, family, or community) would be its short-term and long-term
horizon. Our surveys asked this of the centers, but not of the individuals or communities.
This was a good opportunity that we missed in the case of individuals, but probably
would require a much larger endeavor to measure at the community level.
Many CTCs that we studied indicated that they have neither the time nor the
resources to invest in generating cross-community relationships. The CTCs in our study
have been much more effective at generating "bonding capital" among individual
participants than they were at "bridging" neighborhoods to one another. Our project
hypothesized that CBOs need to create alliances among people with similar needs in
order to contribute to disadvantaged communities collective empowerment. While our
project has shown that the prospects for CBOs to generate community competence are
very positive, questions concerning the difficulties faced by CBOs in creating cohesive,
connected communities should be pursued.
20
To the Future: Thoughts About Our Research and Beyond
Our research framework focused on community development, learning
environments, and community competence. The process of engaging, learning, and
collectively acting together is the driver of comprehensive development. We practiced a
different type of research that relied on a community of inquiry, where researchers were
constantly recording their observations on the different theories they read and practices
they observed as visitors in different centers, then challenging and rebuilding their
assumptions. Researchers discussed theories and findings with CTC staff and
participants, verifying and revising based on those conversations. This type of research
was the distinguishing factor of this project.
Although our research supported many of our initial claims, there are future
endeavors that should be undertaken to yield a more in-depth understanding of the
community development process. Our surveys were adept at capturing details regarding
students' learning experiences in a CTC. However, research that captures the qualitative
side of the learning process would also be useful. Research to explore educational
barriers would be helpful in improving program development. Most importantly, our
team believed that more time spent at the twelve sites we worked with would have been
of value in further grounding and deepening our research.
All of the organizations studied are doing good things for their participants and
communities. Their lessons and practices are valuable tools in the creation of civic
intelligence and positive community development in every city, in every state. To create
lasting change in the greater Austin area, these CBOs must not continue to simply
survive, but grow, thrive, and share their expertise with others who are engaged in the
same work.
A network of CTCs is intrinsically important to this process. Centers must
communicate with one another to share best practices, educate themselves about different
programs, and band together to advocate for their communities. This insures that their
community development practices do not occur in isolation, but touch the entire Austin
community and go even further to benefit communities everywhere.
We have tried, with this document, to share some of these best practices. We
hope that our work has been and will be of use to the CTCs we have worked with and to
the development of health, strong communities where every citizen can fully utilize his or
her gifts. In the end, that's what really matters.
21