To date, the digital divide debate has turned on the concept of access, that is, providing access to those who have no computer or telephone and, thus, cannot enter the Internet realm at school or home. Lack of access to networked technology will result in a substantial segment of society having neither the skills nor the means to participate in the progressively more "knowledge-based" U.S. economy. The concept of "access" encompasses the acquisition of hardware and software as well as complex uses of software for design and production. Between these two extremes, which represent both physical and expressive access, lie other dimensions of access: quality and affordable hardware and software, tools with rich educational content and/or fun activities, and technical and educational support. According to Bruce and Hogan (1998), new tools afford new literacy skills, and various challenges. They also argue that computer technologies are "actors in social systems" that function in a larger social context.

Based on the many policy studies, theoretical impact studies, and studies of community access programs conducted in recent years (Ba & Culp, 20001), it has become clear that there is no contextual characteristic responsible for these inequalities or any single factor that can shed sufficient light to fully understand the access gap. The digital divide is more than digital. It is a complex societal phenomenon reflecting broader contextual factors such as existing social, economic and political, cultural, and learning inequalities. The recurring theme in most digital divide studies is that the issue of access needs to be clarified in terms of sociological, economic, and political factors.

"How can we bridge this divide?"

In light of the complexity of the concept of access in diverse communities, many strategies have been developed at the federal and state government level, private and corporate philanthropic level, computer and Internet design industry level, and the community level.

The general perspective of the Clinton administration and the US Congress about the digital divide has centered on making computers and the Internet accessible to every American child, under-served community, and small business. Some of these strategies for access have consisted of major national initiatives:

• Telecommunications policy initiatives: the National Information Infrastructure of 1993 and the 1996 Telecommunication Act; and
• Community technology programs: the Adult and Vocational Education Office of the US Department of Education, the US Department of Education’s Community Technology Center Program, the US Department of Commerce’s Technology Opportunities Program, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Neighborhood Networks initiatives.

State governments have been developing local programs and policies addressing the digital divide through (1) each state’s public utility commission (PUC), franchise agreements with telecommunications carriers, infrastructure investments, and public interest advocates for universal service (Servon & Nelson, 1999); and (2) department of education. With the approval of state PUCs, public interest advocates have advanced their universal service goals in a number of states including California, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, and Texas. State initiatives are addressing the digital divide through the provision of computers in school programs for students who do not have access to computer and/or Internet access at home. This all-front push at the policy and programmatic level for technology access by the federal and state governments has definitely increased access in various communities. Although these initiatives are much needed, they have not been able to resolve the basic access issue. In recent years, new strategies include summoning the support of private and corporate philanthropic organizations. For example, the community technology center initiatives are growing with support from business and community partners and have generated matching commitments valued at more than $42 million in state, local and corporate funding.

[Community-oriented] programs have a long way to go in terms of the integration of technology into their current programs and/or community needs.

Private and corporate philanthropic organizations are using a grant-making framework to fund mainly digital divide programs. Most of these private companies have developed their own foundations or own grant-making process: America Online, Microsoft, Intel, Gateway, America Online, the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Black Entertainment Television cable network, etc. Concerned with career preparation for youth in the 21st century, they have begun to invest heavily in programmatic efforts designed to provide computer and Internet access to programs serving underrepresented communities. However, this grant-making framework to address the digital divide presents its own problems and contradictions. These types of organizations often come to the digital divide table with their own business agenda. They are often concerned about their own survival in a very fast and ever-changing business environment and would like to expand their markets, which is primarily self-serving and is not necessarily aligned with community needs. In this context, these private and corporate philanthropic organizations may be bringing more problems than solutions to the digital divide issue facing these communities.

The product and service design industries (e.g., NewDeal Software company, Cisco systems) provide technology design solutions for increased access. Their goal is to broaden the use of computers and the Internet through the development of technology design alternatives, cost-effective approach to computing, and technical training. These types of organizations believe that the technology design solutions they develop have profound implications for broader access because of their understanding that the design of technology can include or exclude a large group of people, especially the disability community and those at the lower ends of the economic ladder. A lot of work using this model has focused on addressing the needs and preferences of people with disability and the elderly. However, the replication of the successes of the universal design model for access remains elusive to other under-served communities. To make a design solution for access truly inclusive, there is a need to encompass more of the diversity of human experience, such as, the lack of education and media literacy training, political participation, culture, or gender.

With a mission that includes providing access to disadvantaged communities, this access model can be grouped into four general categories: technology for people with disabilities; community technology programs; youth development and youth leadership; telecommunications research and policy advocacy groups; and youth media. Furthermore, home access programs (e.g., Computers for Youth) have drastically increased their presence in disadvantaged communities. Most of these community-oriented programs are offering families and their children new ways of learning, playing, working, and communicating as they use advanced computer and telecommunications technologies. Proponents of these programs are hopeful that the technologies will allow their members to contribute to their existing communities, and prepare them for the world of work. Disadvantaged communities are benefiting from access to information technology and networking that rebuilds their communities. However, these programs have a long way to go in terms of the integration of technology into their current programs and/or community needs. So far the success factors identified for community technology centers include (see Breeden, et al., 1998; Penuel & Kim, 2000; Sandor & Scheuerer, 2000):

• Strong leadership
• Grounded in community strengths and needs
• Respect for people served
• Broad inclusiveness and diversity
• Support for existing community institutions
• Generous amount of time spent on planning and thorough design of program activities
• Well-trained staff and volunteers
• Thoughtful and up-to-date curriculum
• Inviting physical facilities
• Expert support
• Learning opportunities shaped by the needs and characteristics of the population served
• Hire staff members that are as connected to the center users as they are to the community’s resources
• Update equipment and evaluate the effectiveness of programs
• Commitment to an evaluation program
• Build community partnerships
• Have a widely available knowledge base that is reliable, current, comprehensive, and focused on content about financial opportunities, local resources, best practices and lessons learned, and evaluation resources

Although the results of the above strategies have been uneven across the nation and have not yet been fully understood, the different aspects of promising practices implemented holistically can lead to sustainable programs and are a viable way to learn from other programs’ successes and failures.

"What are the obstacles in bridging this divide?"

The above initiatives may have changed national and state telecommunications policies, helped disseminate lessons learned in the digital divide field, and benefited individuals’ and communities’ well beings and rights. However, they are still servicing organizations and disadvantaged communities faced with the following major obstacles to acquiring internet access (see Wahl et al 2000; Children’s Partnership, 2000; Napili, 1999; Benton Foundation, 1998):

• Inadequate technology infrastructure
• Under-utilization of the technology
• Lack of buy-in from stakeholders and end users
• Staff turnover, lack of time to engage with the technology
• Rapid obsolescence of technology
• Cost and affordability, lack of education
• Language barriers, training and media literacy
• Securing appropriate and useful Web content
• Threats to privacy and capacity building
• Lack of local information
• Lack of cultural diversity in Internet resources
• General information exists on topics of interest but is not accessible because of the style of writing.
• Most online content at a basic literacy reading level targets children
• Most Web sites have no multicultural content
• Difficult to find practical employment information such as local job resources or job listings for entry-level positions
• Most users did not find the information they were asked to look for on the Internet
• Most users did not find the Web material understandable or easily organized
• Most users did not find the portals assigned easy to use
• People with disabilities find the design of Web environments (e.g., images, Java applications, search forms, tables, and frames) pose access limitations.
• Most nonprofit organizations lack technology knowledge, are fragmented, face turf protection, have inadequate investment, and lack staff with adequate technology skills.
• Most nonprofit organizations are hesitant to use technology and are ill-informed about the impact it could have on their work.
• The existing technology assistance providers are ill-equipped to provide the kind of support necessary to transform the nonprofit sector’s use of technology.
• These organizations are also faced with the lack of insights into project planning, selecting appropriate technologies, the importance of developing and maintaining productive community partnerships, and the challenge of securing long-term financial support for the technology projects.
• Funders usually do not understand the implications of technology access for communities, and are reluctant to invest in efforts that seem unrelated to program delivery. This has created a situation of funding instability in this area of the digital divide.
• The lack of perception of the technology as part communities’ social priorities, and the lack of political clout
• Many under-served communities seem to be more focused on acquiring the technology and less on building social capital. However, building social capital seems to be the most important development factor in the long run.
• Even for those who have access to the Internet, the challenge of fully benefiting from it remains. Technology access for many disadvantaged communities is due to literacy and language barriers; the lack of local information; and the lack of cultural diversity on the Web. Content and the rapid advance of the technologies are keeping out most of these people. Obsolescence of technology and skills remains a continuous dilemma for community organizations.

We still have much more to learn about how these communities actually make use of the computer and Internet in their daily lives.

These barriers demonstrate amply that getting beyond access is not an easy task. Little has been done by policy makers and community organizations to develop comprehensive theoretical frameworks and to research evaluation agendas aimed at understanding the nature of quality access, especially in the areas of learning and teaching with and/or about advanced technologies in informal settings for under-served communities. The main issue is to implement digital divide programs which will simulataneously address most of these barriers to technology access, as well as strong research approaches which allow us to know the ways these programs are addressing the digital divide. Identifying barriers to access for under-served communities is one thing, but designing digital divide programs responsive to community technology needs is totally different. There are very few established theoretical and methodological models for understanding and analyzing the growing cultural, individual and social, political and economic uses of these technologies.

Conclusion

Community-based technology programs are expanding quickly and the research community is starting to gain some insight into how information and telecommunications technologies are supporting the needs of disadvantaged communities. However, important questions remain about how community organizations can best make use of existing research and how additional data can be collected to enable programs to continue to grow, innovate, and refine their technology initiatives. Rigorous research documenting both effective program design and outcomes lags behind. Questions remain about the kinds of conceptual frameworks and practical tools that will genuinely help community organizations to determine whether their programmatic efforts are meeting their goals. We still have much more to learn about how these communities actually make use of the computer and Internet in their daily lives.

The digital divide issues raised above have demonstrated clearly that there is a need for community leaders, government agencies, policy makers, industry people, community-based program staff, and researchers to look beyond simple access to hardware and software. It is more valuable to address issues of teaching and learning with technology in informal settings located in disadvantaged communities. Moreover, it is my firm belief that any digital divide program which does not take into account the emerging handheld technologies’ capacity to support the development of new distributed childhood risk having no or only partial impact on the youth that they serve. There are new ecologies of childhood learning that we are barely aware of happening at the local level: homes, schools, and community centers. We can learn much more about closing the digital divide from programs that pay attention to the above three settings where most youth spend most of their time. This potential strategy presents a holistic and complex access picture to young people.