Untitled - socium.ge

community issues, access advanced technology and gain inclusion in our information-basedsociety.Finally, CTCs differ with respect to their target populations. Although mostCTCs aim to help people on low incomes in urban areas, they tend to servedifferent segments of that larger population. Some programs target youth,while others target unemployed and under-employed workers, and still othersserve senior citizens, the disabled, the homeless, and/or a particular neighborhood.How do CTCs bridge the digital divide? One way to answer this questionis to understand the ways in which these organizations confront the threedimensions of the problem laid out above: access, training, and content. 3AccessThe US community technology movement 327Despite the trend toward expansion of CTC missions beyond access, the mostcommon function of CTCs remains providing unstructured computer access topeople who might otherwise have little or no opportunity to use computers andinformation technologies. General computer access is offered by 87 percent ofCTCs, and more than three-quarters use technology as a communication tool(i.e., offering access to e-mail). As access providers, CTCs allow communitymembers to drop in and surf the Internet, work on homework, prepare résumésand cover letters, use e-mail, or engage in a variety of other activities. The HillHouse Community Access Network (HHCAN), a CTC in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, offers some structured workshops to provide participants withthe skills necessary to use computers, but its emphasis is on providing accessto neighborhood residents. Carl Redwood, former associate director ofHHCAN emphasizes the importance of providing unstructured access:The free aspect of these centers . . . is very important. I think there is a danger in thetechnology center movement, particularly as it relates to low-income communities,to assume that we’re doing something for people . . . I think what we have to do isjust make resources available to the community and the community will figure outwhat, when, and how to use them. And they may not use them the way the mayor’soffice or someone else thinks they should use them . . . But I think it just needs tobe open like that.Redwood and others essentially argue that those who support IT initiatives inlow-income communities must remain open to the multiple ways in whichthese communities may use these tools. Narrow, prescriptive interventions cancut off potentially rich applications of IT resources.At the same time, most CTCs (including HHCAN) have a broader definitionof access than Redwood’s statement implies. They not only provide thenecessary tools, they also show low-income communities how and why IT