1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

13

Community

Learning

Centers

At no time in history has the role of information andcommunication been more important to global economic,social, and political development. Talk of the “informationage” and “communication revolution” pervades much of theworld’s media. International donors such as The World Bankare sponsoring conferences and issuing landmark studies on the“global knowledge society.” Around the world, nations areexperimenting with information and communicationtechnology (ICT) applications to help make education andtraining more effective, build more vibrant economies, improvehealth care delivery and other social services, and strengthendemocratic processes. Though long-term results are notavailable, countries are paying increasing attention to thepotential of ICTs as development tools.

In 1994, for the first time ever, more personal computersthan television sets were purchased in the United States. Thecomputer, a device formerly used only by scientists andacademics, had become a consumer appliance. Computers(essentially data storage and processing machines) andtelecommunications technologies (essentially data transfertools, such as satellites, fiber optics, increased capacity copperwiring, and networking software and hardware) are heralded asthe cornerstones of the new Information Age. There is muchdiscussion in schools, communities, and workplaces about howaccess to these technologies has created a fundamental shift inthe ways people learn, communicate, and do business.

In developed economies, the “access model” that has enableda vast segment of the population to participate in and benefitfrom this information and communications phenomenon is basedlargely on personal acquisition, ownership, and individualizedaccess in the workplace. Largely due to widespread public access

Community Learning Centers

Model-of-UseIncreasing Access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

1Steve Dorsey

Steve Dorsey was

managing director of the

LearnLink project.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

14

Community

Learning

Centers

of telephony at the turn of the century, the normis for individual households to have telephonelines, cable television, satellite dishes, andpersonal computers.Where individual ownershipis not yet attainable, access to the technologies isprovided in schools and workplaces, libraries,business service centers, and at communitytechnology centers. Further, recent dramaticdrops in the costs of technologies relative to theaverage household income has enabled a vastsegment of the population to participate in andbenefit from the current information andcommunications phenomenon.

In developing countries those in the elitesegment of society may have a high rate oftechnology ownership and Internet use, but the vastmajority of the inhabitants do not. Low householdincome and inadequate infrastructure capacities(i.e., electricity and telephone lines) precludepersonal ownership. Moreover, libraries and schoolsin developing countries tend to suffer from chronicunder-funding and poor physical facilities.

The challenge becomes how to bring thepotential benefits of the information andcommunication age to the developing world. Howcan the barriers that prevent the majority of peoplein the world from accessing ICTs be overcome?

A number of approaches can be considered.By adopting a hands-off mentality and trusting inthe forces of change (still lower costs oftechnologies and gradually improving

infrastructures), access might eventually trickledown to developing countries. Relying on themarket to solve these problems, however, seems anuntenable solution for those in the “developmentbusiness.” Conditions favorable for participationare improving in many parts of the developingworld. Yet, the pace of this improvement meansthat most developing countries will see severalmore generations pass before any significantportions of their populations will be able toparticipate fully in a global information- andcommunication-based society and economy.

On the other hand, the goal of a computer inevery home or every classroom in developingcountries is untenable because there are suchsignificant, large-scale barriers, includinginfrastructure, human resource capacity, and cost.Unless equipment drops in price to that of asmall transistor radio, such an ambitiousundertaking is implausible.

Is there a middle ground? Is there someworkable model for providing access and learningopportunities to communities and individuals thatis sound in development terms (equitable,benefiting the under-served, culturally appropriate,affordable, and sustainable)? This paper claims thatsuch a model does exist—that CommunityLearning Centers (CLCs) are helping to bridgethe digital divide within and between countriesand providing opportunities for public access toICTs in the developing world.

An IDRC rendering of a telecenter.CLC clients.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

15

Community

Learning

Centers

The Community Learning Center model isviable for meeting critical access and learning needsin the developing world. This paper describes andillustrates the CLC model including philosophy,primary audiences, key capabilities, and functionalrequirements. Examples are provided from pilotCLC experiences funded by USAID through theLearnLink project and selected experiences ofCLCs supported by other international donors orcommunities. The chapter also discusses the criticalissues of CLC evaluation and sustainability andreasons why further investments in this publicaccess model are warranted.

The Community Learning Center ConceptThe CLC concept has its roots in communityservice points. Post offices and telegraph andtelephone company offices served as centralservice points for information access andcommunication in communities. The proliferationof libraries and postal, telephone, and nowcomputer1 and Internet technologies has createdmore individualized ways of meeting informationand communication needs. In many parts of thedeveloped and developing world where theseservices have not penetrated, business centersoffering services such as typing, telephoning,faxing, word processing, printing, andphotocopying have emerged to meet the needs ofindividuals and the business community. Some ofthese centers also offer computer networkingservices such as email and Internet access, givingrise to a new form of telecenter, telecottage, cybercafé, or community technology center. In thesecenters, the traditional focus is on providing basicservices to meet the productivity andcommunication needs of clients who otherwisewould not have access to such tools in theiroffices, schools, or homes.

The CLC concept builds on business ortechnology center services but emphasizes thelearning function of the technologies and servicesthat are made available. Providing them at thecommunity level will increase access to ICT-supported education and socio-economicdevelopment opportunities for individuals, groups,and organizations in developing countries.Some of the tools and services available in a CLC include:

Basic training in computer literacyBasic computer applications software andtraining (i.e., word processing and spread sheet)Internet point of presenceEmail accounts to allow in-country andinternational linkagesAccess to the World Wide WebTechnical assistance to establish a web siteCD-ROM librariesMulti-media and interactive learning productsfor a broad spectrum of audiences, includingdisadvantaged and nontraditional learnersInternet and database research and referenceservices

At Community Learning Centers, facilitators canhelp familiarize clients with the technologies,resources, and services offered and structure thelearning experience so it is tailored to clients’specific information, communication, and learningobjectives. Ideally, such a center is housed in aneasily accessible, public setting with adequateinfrastructure and security. The setting could be acommunity school, municipal center, or otherpublic building. In some cases, a CLC could behoused within a nonprofit organization or even inconjunction with a private, for-profit enterprise.Adequate infrastructure includes a reliable supplyof electricity, either from the electrical grid orprovided through generators or solar sources, andan environment that can be regulated to moderatethe effects of dust and heat on equipment.Finally, adequate security is important to ensurethat valuable equipment is safeguarded againsttheft or vandalism.

In terms of financial viability, one type of CLCis operated as a nonprofit venture with a fee-for-services structure that enables recovery of operatingexpenses, payment of staff, and augmentation ofresources and services over time. Short- and long-range cost projections based on necessary, recurrentinputs (i.e., salaries, supplies, facilities and equipmentmaintenance and upgrades, and resource expansion)can be made to help estimate the necessary level offees to establish cost recovery. Innovativepublic/private partnerships also can be exploredwhereby the private sector may provide subsidiesfor equipment and supplies in exchange for lowerfees or the rights to advertise in the center.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

16

Community

Learning

Centers

Another type of CLC may operate as a profit-making venture with “a social conscience.” In thisscenario local entrepreneurs operate the CLC andprovide services at reduced prices for social changeagents, such as educators, health practitioners, andagricultural extension agents, as well as students,members of NGOs, and others.

Regardless of the type of financial structureadopted, CLC staff direct the administration of thecenter in conjunction with the sponsoring institutionincluding: setting hours of operation, staffing thecenter, maintaining the equipment, training users;overseeing center finances; fundraising, advertisingand outreach to disadvantaged and nontraditionallearners, and building a library of additional resources.

CLC staff members find that they must actfrequently as technology intermediaries forsignificant portions of their clientele. Illiteracyand/or unfamiliarity with ICTs may cause someclients to feel uncomfortable or to perceive thecenter as irrelevant to their needs. In thesecommunities, center staff has a special responsibilityto publicize the services of the center among targetpopulations, promote community awareness of andinterest in the resources, and draw in thedisadvantaged and nontraditional communities.

Where more than one CLC exists in a confinedgeographic area, a networking relationship can beestablished between the centers to share resourcesunder an interlibrary loan model. Especially asregards Internet access, if a CLC is established in anarea where infrastructure is inadequate to supportconnectivity, one or more of the centers with thefacility for connectivity can be designated as onlineCLCs while those without connectivity would beoffline CLCs. The online CLCs could set up adiskette or CD-ROM service to provide the offline

CLCs with remote offline access to valuable onlineresources. Finally, in a CLC network, center staff canbe brought together for periodic training sessions.

In the developing world, telecottages or cybercafés typically are established in well-serviced urbancenters, such as capital cities, not in remote or ruralareas. While it is true that the infrastructure inprimary urban centers is more conducive to theestablishment of such services, and a certainconcentration of population is necessary tomaintain a financially viable center, it is also truethat secondary and tertiary urban centers, preciselybecause they lack the support available in capitalcities, may have more pressing need for theservices. In the case of Internet connectivity inAfrica, for example, the political capitals were thefocus of early efforts at connectivity whilesecondary or tertiary urban centers are under-serviced or not serviced at all. It is important thatthis tendency to concentrate new resources in areasalready relatively well served be addressed throughan effort to extend valuable learning services insecondary and tertiary urban areas as well.

Ideally, CLCs distinguish themselves from cybercafés by focusing on ICT training for communitymembers, as well as affordability. In this regard, theprimary CLC audience may be the under-served,or those for whom even private sector telecenteror cyber café fees are beyond their means.

The Community Learning Center Model-of-UseThe telecenter movement is preoccupied withspreading and sharing new tools and capacities forliving, working, and learning. It is a fundamentallydistributive, as opposed to an acquisitive, institutionand process. It relies upon common-use access to

A training program at

CEDECOM in Cape Coast,

Ghana

Busy LearnLink CLC in Porto

Novo, Benin.

Students take advantage of a

CLC in Asunción, Paraguay.

School children are

introduced to computers at

the Songhai Center CLC in

Savalou, Benin.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

17

Community

Learning

Centers

new information and communications technologieswithin an organizational culture where informallearning, cross-coaching, and skill fusion are therule, not the exception. The driving force behindcommunity learning centers is to spread the benefitof empowering new technologies (Fuchs 1997).

Two overarching objectives frame the strategicmission of a CLC:

Provide public access to information,educational, and communications technologieswhere they are not available; andProvide learning services to patrons.

This CLC model applies to a range of facilitiesand includes

a commitment to supporting formal andinformal educational opportunities within thecommunity and cross-sectoral learningservices to support diverse social developmentneedsa commitment to enhancing the politicalenfranchisement of the communityprovision of a publicly accessible site withcomputer services and, if possible, telephony adequate securityan informal, welcoming environmentfriendly, knowledgeable staff and/or volunteerswell-maintained, reliable computer equipmentand peripheralssupported by a sound business plan, includingstrategies for private sector partnerships and apricing structure tailored to clients’ ability topay and adequate for cost recovery (if intendedto be self-sustaining)a variety of training programs and servicescommunity outreach (advertising) strategiesaccurate record keeping and accounting

From 1996 to 2003, USAID funded theLearnLink Project to help initiate CLCs inmunicipal offices, NGOs, schools, and libraries inselected target countries. Community LearningCenters can be housed in any number ofsettings, including stand-alone or private sectorsites. The locale is not nearly as critical as thephilosophy of the operating institution. As longas the features listed above are represented, aCLC has the potential to provide valuableservices to its community.

Primary CLC AudiencesA CLC serves a variety of audiences and needs.The beauty of the technologies provided via CLCsis that they are multi-purposed and user-defined.For example, typically a computer is not designedto serve only a particular audience, such as K–6school age children.The user is expected to definethe use for the computer by loading specificcontent or software and hardware capabilities. Anysingle computer can be tailored to meet the needsof multiple users. In this same respect, the CLCmodel is flexible in that it may serve a variety ofaudiences. The discussion below describes howseveral primary audience groups can benefit fromaccess to a CLC.

Educational Organizations

A fundamental benefit of a Community LearningCenter is its educational offerings and the ability ofthe center to change the way in which communitymembers see the world and their place in it.

The impact of access to medical databases onCD-ROM, for example, was described by HelgaPatrikios, Deputy University Librarian, at theUniversity of Zimbabwe:

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

18

Community

Learning

Centers

Unquestionably CD-ROM databases…havebrought about a rapid change in the information-seekingbehavior of our users; unprecedented rapid and easyaccess to current and archival journal literature; and anincreased awareness and documented increased use of thejournal literature. We believe, however, that the mostsignificant and valuable outcome of this service has beenthe growing awareness in its users of a range, literally aworld of otherwise unknown information sources. It hasbeen by far the greatest force for progress in informationaccess that our users have experienced (Patrikios, 1996).

A CLC that functions as a central learningresource will evaluate its success in promotingincreased learning within the community. To thatend, CLCs offer services to support formal,informal, and nonformal learning for individuals ofall ages and provide a place where:

individuals are introduced to computertechnologies as a first step toward fullparticipation in the global information andcommunication age;individuals participate in distance learningopportunities from local, national, or evenglobal sources;the community can access educationalresources—primary, secondary, and tertiary—available through the Internet;external experts “visit” the community via arange of technologies, from telephone and faxto email and low-end videoconferencing;educators and administrators can connect todispersed administrative offices more efficiently;teachers, students and administrators canparticipate in regional, national, and internationalprojects, such as school-to-school initiatives;educational NGOs can learn about fundingopportunities;educators can receive technology training andparticipate in professional developmentopportunities;educators can create materials to supplementlimited instructional aids;students can access resources to support in-classlearning or extracurricular interests;students can acquire skills to help run CLCsand even instruct less-experienced teachers;and a library of on-site educational materials(electronic and traditional) can be provided.

At LearnLink-supported CLCs in Asunción,Paraguay, for example, students and teachers werefrequent patrons and made extensive use ofSpanish-language learning tools such asmultimedia encyclopedias and science referenceprograms. In Bulgaria, at LearnLink’s PublicCommunication and Computer Centers (PC3s),more than 4,000 community members receivedcomputer training in the first six months ofoperation, and over a two-year period, threeLearnLink CLCs in Ghana provided ICT trainingto 10,000 patrons from a variety of sectors. InNakaseke, Uganda, an IDRC-fundedCLC/Telecenter provided support to the localprimary and secondary teachers’ educational“cluster,” which enabled teachers to obtainresources such as color printouts of maps for usein classroom geography instruction.

To some extent, the role of a CommunityLearning Center can be viewed as an extension ofthe traditional role of the public library. Publiclibraries are places where individuals can gather toaccess a wealth of resources. In this sense, librariesare informal educational institutions, or, as AndrewCarnegie called them,“the poor man’s university.”In the United States, government policy and amassive program by the Gates Foundation haveestablished libraries as key players in the effort tomake available computers and Internet access tothose who cannot afford to pay for personalaccess. In the developing world, CLCs can fill thisrole as a communal resource, serving as meetingplace, information exchange center, andprofessional development site.

CLCs for lifelong learning.

Because the CLC is a community resource, thetarget educational community is quite broad.Extensive learning needs exist in all communitiesbeyond the structure of the formal educationsystem. For example, community healtheducators need ideas for campaigns, or localfarmers need to know what nontraditional cropsare in demand in other parts of the country or ininternational markets.

Lifelong learning is one of thosecommonsense concepts frequently taken forgranted. The need to learn does not stop whenformal schooling stops. The health educator and

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

19

Community

Learning

Centers

the farmer are knowledgeable, but they needinformation and learning beyond the realm oftheir past experience. Community LearningCenters can help meet need to keep up withchanges in a profession or craft.

According to The National Institute onPostsecondary Education, Libraries, and LifelongLearning, a CLC should use the following questionsas a tool by which to set its standards (Humes 1996):

What does a lifelong learning community look like? Who is involved? Will today’s lifelong learning community differfrom that of the future? Which are we planning for?How does the societal climate for learningdiffer among communities?How do communities view their learningopportunities beyond those provided bytraditional schooling (K–12 institutions andpostsecondary colleges and universities)?What are the enablers and barriers to thedevelopment of lifelong learning communities?What community coordination andcooperation is needed to stimulate and enhance lifelong learning?What training and education is needed forcommunity leaders to understand theeconomic, social, political, and personal benefitsof investing in lifelong learning opportunities?What will it mean (financially, economically,and socially) for the community to increase thenumber of adults engaging in lifelong learning?What does a virtual (electronic) communitylook like, and what is the role of theCommunity Learning Center in its creationand existence?

For the Community Learning Center to serve as a lifelong learning facility, it must find ways tobroaden the community’s awareness of theresources and services offered and increase thecommunity’s interest in visiting the CLC toexplore learning opportunities. Particularly withadults who have had no prior exposure to thetechnologies, CLCs will grapple with questions ofrelevancy and “technophobia.” Programs must beput in place to raise awareness of the CLC’s role insupport of community learning.

The Centre for the Development of People(CEDEP) in Kumasi, which has been operating aCLC (with LearnLink assistance during 1998-2000) since 1999, increased community awarenessthrough a traditional bulletin board, open houses,and special programs for targeted audiences. Alarge bulletin board just outside the door of theCLC displayed printouts of current informationtaken from the Internet. This information isrelevant to the community and illustrates thetypes of resources available inside. In addition,CEDEP staged a series of special weeks fortargeted groups, such as women’s NGOs, healtheducators, and small entrepreneurs. Specialinvitations were issued to targeted communitymembers to visit the CLC for tailoredorientation and training programs, and specialoffers were available, based on already veryeconomical fees.

These and other efforts resulted in increaseddemand for CLC services, requiring CEDEP toexpand its original CLC space to accommodateadditional workstations and patrons.

Oasis Trust in the United Kingdom runs aproject called Wire the World, where e-Academieshave been established in Mumbai and Bangalore,India, and are expanding in South Africa andBrazil. The centers are run with fees generatedfrom the technical classes each offers. The centerof ICT activity in India, Bangalore’s users demandmore challenging curriculum than justkeyboarding and word processing, so this CLCoffers advanced courses in programminglanguages, similar to those more frequently foundin universities and business institutes.

In Asunción, Paraguay, a CLC, established andsupported by Learnlink during 1997-1999, waslocated in the main bus station, which is run bythe municipality of Asunción. At an early meetingwith the neighbors who lived near the bus station,a city administrator announced that the CLCwould be a “free school,” and this function stayedwith the center notwithstanding its primary goalof providing municipal services to citizens.

Nonprofits, NGOs

Community Learning Centers providecommunication capacity-building services tononprofit and non-governmental organizations,

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

20

Community

Learning

Centers

which generally operate with minimal resources. Amajority of NGOs in developing countries do nothave the resources to secure the infrastructure,computer hardware and software, and humanresources required to support their full participationin the global knowledge society. Many even lackthe budget for other basic services such as fax andphotocopying. In this climate, there is little hopethat NGOs in the developing world will reap thepotential benefits of the information andcommunications age anytime soon.

Given their close relationship to thecommunity, small size, and corresponding need tonetwork and communicate, as well as theinformation intensity of their work, many NGOsare prime targets for the successful adoption andsubsequent diffusion of ICTs. However, NGOsoften are least capable of maintaining the ongoingcapital reinvestment and operating costs associatedwith the type of service that can enhance theircapabilities considerably. Also, the proliferation ofNGOs makes it difficult for the international donorcommunity to address this need on anindividualized basis. At best, donors select a fewkey NGO partners and provide them with ICTresources.There are many other worthwhile,community-based NGOs, however, that couldbenefit tremendously from some level of ICTaccess and training. Community Learning Centersallow NGOs to:

become aware of and participate ininternational initiatives;forge partnerships with other local, regional,national, and international organizations;keep abreast of issues and approaches in theirsector(s) of concern;create and distribute more widely effectiveoutreach and fund-raising materials;access professional development opportunities;and increase operational efficiencies.

CLCs must make a conscious effort to draw inNGOs and demonstrate how the available ICTsand services can help build their capacity toachieve their missions. Often NGOs—especiallysmall, community-based NGOs—will not beaware of the potential benefits technologies canbring. On the other hand, once they are exposedto the technologies and related services via a CLC,

NGOs often respond enthusiastically and becomeinnovative users of the services accessible to them.In Uganda, for example, NGOs account for morethan 40 percent of the use of the Kampala-basedMUKLA electronic network. NGOs are oftenamong the founding partners in creating atelecenter, either as an individual, local initiative oras part of a broader, global project.

The Center for the Development of People(CEDEP), a long-standing, community-basedNGO in Ghana, had only limited exposure to ICTsprior to the launching of the CLC initiative. YetCEDEP embraced the activity with vigor and wassoon running a vibrant center. Because CEDEPhad forged partnerships with many other NGOsover the years, it focused the first few months ofCLC operations on informing partners about theactivity and providing them with orientation andtraining on a preferred schedule and/or free ofcharge. After this initial investment in outreach toits NGO partners, CEDEP continues to draw inNGOs by making frequent on-site presentationsand offering NGOs significantly discounted ratesfor access and training.

Commercial Interests

What distinguishes the CLC/telecenter modelfrom other types of ICT introductions is theapproach it takes to horizontal rather than verticalmarkets in the developing world. In fact, one ofthe model’s most compelling impacts, when itsucceeds, is that it is a market maker or acceleratorin places where ICTs, when they are available atall, can be accessed by only a privileged few.

From the very first European CLC/telecenterin Velmdalen, Sweden in 1985, to the adoptionand modification of this model in many parts ofthe world today, a compelling CLC legacy is theacceleration of participation in the informationeconomy among a broad cross-section of thecommunity. In the pre-market circumstance,which characterizes almost all rural areas andlarge segments of urban populations in thedeveloping world, the entry point for ICT use isstill many years away, especially if market forcesalone are expected to generate the demand.Lester Thurow, Professor Emeritus of Economicsat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put itthis way:

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

21

Community

Learning

Centers

Capitalist infrastructure can only be built behind orslightly ahead of the market… The Internet could nothave been privately financed, the usage wasn’t there,would take twenty years to develop… But, in the end, asocial investment in infrastructure provided the means fordeveloping an exciting set of new private industries.(Thurow, 1998)

The CLC model represents a social investmentto create a “diffusion effect” for the adoption ofICTs in a horizontal cross-section of “pre-markets”or audiences in a particular community or region.The purpose of the model is not necessarily tobuild a business of the services it offers, thoughthis, too, can be done. Its purpose is to generatedemand and diffuse skills sufficient for smallbusiness, local government, and the education andNGO sectors to become self-directed and self-sustaining in the information economy.

The Chasm Group’s Geoffrey Moore, one ofthe world’s most successful technology-relatedmarketing consultants, spoke at a conference abouthow technology firms should market to segmentsof the marketplace. He said,“Forget the lateadopters and laggards” (Moore 1998).

What Moore is asserting doubtless makes goodbusiness sense. Providing access, raising awareness,and undertaking campaigns for diffusion can betime-consuming and expensive. Yet it is not fair tocharacterize most of the developing world marketas laggards since there truly has not been sufficientopportunity for these markets to choose earlyadoption versus late adoption. Still, it may be thatmost of Africa and much of Asia will not be ableto enjoy the social and economic benefits of theinformation economy for some time because theirtechnology adoption circumstance is at the back ofthe innovation curve. However, as costs droppedon personal computers in the United States,people with lower incomes bought computers forhome use. In South Africa, the use of the pre-paidphone card generated a great deal of business inlow income areas that had previously beendismissed as not part of the market. Thesubscription model in the Peruvian CabinasPublicas pioneered by Red Científica Peruana allowedlower middle class adults and many students ICTaccess when ownership was not possible.Thecombination of falling prices, innovative

promotion, and spreading awareness of the benefitswill bring in new users, even if they are not alwaysowners or Internet service subscribers.

In the Bulgarian Public Computer andCommunication Center (PC3) network supportedby LearnLink during 2000-2002, one of the mostinnovative ways they promoted interest was todistribute vouchers for pre-paid Internet access.Social change agents (the advocates and users inneed of affordable access in the small towns wherePC3s were located) used the vouchers as earlyadopters.This kick-started the businesses and alsoserved as data collection devices for some of theevaluation reports.

The social investment prescription favored byThurow seeks to trigger market demand,entrepreneurial familiarity, and institutional adoptionof ICT. This is exactly the effect of the successfulCLC model in “back-of-the-market” communities.

Small Business and the ICT hierarchy

of needs:

While many projects assume that the Internetshould be the lead service when introducing ICTs,small businesses generally need to progress throughseveral less sophisticated stages, coined by Fuchs asa “hierarchy of needs,” before they can evenconsider the use of network technologies.

While not all businesses must or do migratethrough all four of these hierarchical steps, Fuchsand others have observed the progression withhundreds of small business people. The “hierarchyof needs” for the diffusion of ICT in the small-business sector includes the following items:

Access to facilities: In many “back-of-the-market”communities, most small businesses have neverused a computer. The very first step is to arousetheir curiosity about the technology and facilities.This could be done by producing a sign for theweekly specials at the local store, drafting the firstspreadsheet of sales for the month, or producingletterhead stationery with desktop publishingsoftware--even typing a letter or sending a fax.

Using information: Many businesses, and not justthose in the developing world, seldom engage in“information-seeking behavior” using electronicor print information. They rely on people such as

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

22

Community

Learning

Centers

relatives, bankers, and sales agents to help themform judgments about what they might do orhow they might change their enterprise. Beforeusing network technologies, businesses first needto learn the advantages of using ICTs in theireveryday business decision making and how it cansupplement the human networks that will remaincentral but will be expanded.

Network services: Once the business persondevelops a basic understanding of how to use thefacilities and has become acquainted with use ofinformation, he/she is now ready to be introducedto the use of network tools such as email, theInternet, and the World Wide Web.

ICT business startups: Having progressed throughthe first three steps associated with a hierarchy ofneeds, some businesses will start ICT enterprisesthemselves—an important sign of success for theCLC. Once this occurs, the CLC needs to ensurethat it is enabling and supporting the newenterprise rather than competing with it.

Community Learning Centers are a naturalstimulus for the creation of information-basedbusinesses.2 For example, several of the NationalService Volunteers working in CLCs in Ghanareported that, with this experience, they hoped tolaunch their own ICT ventures when their servicewas up. Among the likeliest ventures to bestimulated by CLCs are:

import of information products;local word and data processing;database creation and management;travel services;financial management and investment; and news/press services.

The majority of technology-based businesses havea longer trajectory for reaching financial stabilityand profitability because demand for their servicesmay have to be created within a community thatis unfamiliar with the services. Whereastraditional businesses realize the efficienciesoffered by the new ICTs immediately,information-based companies initially must investgreater resources in building a market byintroducing prospective clients to the benefits ofICT products and services.

Municipalities

Community Learning Centers supportdemocracy-building efforts by strengthening theway municipalities distribute information andprovide services. Municipalities use the centers to

distribute information and forms for routinefunctions such as licensing and registration;distribute information about electoral candidatesand provide a forum for community discussion;provide broader access to municipal officials viaemail or online discussions;promote greater transparency and improvedaccountability in local government services;increase the efficiency of interagencycommunication;distribute information electronically to acommunity’s Diaspora; andreceive and send information from smallcommunities to regional and national offices.

In the industrialized world, there are numerousexamples of municipalities that have establishedstrong community networks, accessible bothwithin and outside the community.This includesthe Santa Monica, California Public ElectronicNetwork, the Tallahassee, Florida Free-Net, andIperbole in Bologna, Italy. In addition, manycitizen initiatives—such as the Seattle CommunityNetwork, Rete Civiche in Milan, Italy, and theBarcelona Xarxa Ciutadana in Spain—sought linkswith their towns as municipal networks.

In Asunción, Paraguay, LearnLink helpedestablish a CLC in each of the municipality’s 12districts. In addition to providing learningopportunities to their communities, these CLCsfacilitated communication between municipalstaff and provided citizens with access to themayor or other municipal officials through emailand online chat.

Individuals

Individual use of learning centers spans the fullrange of services, from basic introductions tocomputing, teleworking, lifelong learning, andsimply connecting with distant family members.The extent to which a Community LearningCenter focuses on providing services to individuals,as opposed to organizations, is a function of itscharter, stated goals, hardware and software

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

23

Community

Learning

Centers

inventory, price structure, and staff resources. Inmany facilities, some individuals become regularsand may begin to function as auxiliary staff. Giventhe limited resources available to most centers, thisis a valuable source of support. In some cases,volunteers or interns from local universities or theprivate sector also may lend support.

One of the interesting challenges is to keep aCLC from catering to a single group ofenthusiastic users. In Santa Monica, California, thehomeless dominated the free machines located inall the library branches. In other places, studentscomprise most of the users. Break AwayTechknologies, an inner city communitytechnology center in Los Angeles, California, ishoused in a former commercial building withmany rooms, a stage, private offices, and room forstorage.This allows many different groups to usethe facility at the same time. Older adults may feelmore comfortable working with each other whilechildren respond better in a different environment.Classes range from beginning keyboarding toadvanced video production, and the facility alsoprovides space for public events.While some CLCshave sufficient space for several activities at once,however, most CLCs are in a single room, andsome are quite small.

While young students quickly find their way toCLCs in every country, the center staff needs toreach out to different age groups, women andgirls, teachers, and different sectors of the businessworld. The LearnLink CLCs in Ghana, Benin,Paraguay, and Bulgaria used publicity and a widevariety of different methods to reach all thedifferent kinds of potential users in theircommunities. Ghanaian CLCs used “Open Weeks”for target groups, for example, plus seminars forbusiness professionals, teachers, and marketwomen. In Paraguay, inaugurations were galaaffairs, accompanied by singing and dancing, whileeven the Town Crier announced the opening ofthe CLCs in Cotonou, Benin.

International and National Organizations as

Benefactors and Beneficiaries

Currently, the number of communications-basedinitiatives launched by international organizationsis increasing exponentially. Multilateral fundingorganizations such as The World Bank, UNESCO,

the Inter-American Development Bank, theUnited Nations Development Programme, and theEuropean Community have made long-termcommitments to major programs that targetdirectly or rely indirectly on information andcommunication technologies. National bilateralfunding agencies such as USAID and JICA (Japan)likewise have established telecommunications andtechnology assistance as an organizational priority.

Among the long-term initiatives that havebeen established to promote information accesswithin the developing world are Canada’sInternational Development Research Centre’sAcacia program and Pan Asian Networking (PAN)initiative; USAID’s Leland Initiative, LearnLinkProject, the DOT-COM Program;3 The WorldBank’s InfoDev and World Links for DevelopmentProjects; and the United Nations’ SustainableDevelopment Networking Programme (SDNP).The G8 Digital Opportunity Task Force broughttogether governments, business, and non-profits inan effort to chart multiple efforts to bringconnectivity and access to ICTs in developingcountries.After meetings and consultations, theDOT Force issued a final report in June 2002, andworking groups have continued the effort. Oneproject will bring CLCs to Francophone Africa,and the Telecenter Infomediary and Helpdeskproject plans to offer remote support and on siteassistance to CLCs around the world.VariousLatin American nations have rewritten theirregulations governing universal access and haveundertaken large public-private partnerships tobuild telecenters and other CLCs in Brazil,Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, and Mexico.

In the past decade, many governments andnational and international organizations havesought to alter the balance of resources and powerbetween the state, provincial, and local levels, aswell as between the national and internationallevels. Community Learning Centers support thisprocess of devolution by making states, provinces,and localities less dependent on central, national,and international agencies for informationdissemination and operational coordination. TheICTs made available through the centers empowercommunities to seek, generate, and shareinformation and resources on a far moreindependent basis.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

24

Community

Learning

Centers

In the case of development projects, learningcenters can enable national and internationalagencies to communicate directly with localproject personnel. They can send and receivereports, organize meeting and visitation logistics,make remotely located experts available, and linkrelated projects for collaborative support.While itcan take some time for local personnel toaccustom themselves to such direct access, it isultimately in the best interest of the project.

Key Capabilities of a Community Learning CenterCLCs are organized to provide facilities and accessto information, communication, and informalcoaching and training. CLCs typically include thefollowing services.

Computer-Based Services

A Community Learning Center’s inventory ofcomputers may range from two or three to 20 to25 or more. A typical Nordic telecottage hasbetween two and five computers, and Canada’sNCDC Technology Center began with only twocomputers for public use (Campbell, Part 6).LearnLink-supported CLCs in Paraguay, Ghana,and Benin range from three to ten computersavailable for public access, while the technologycenter in a rural library in Elsa,Texas, has morethan 20 work stations. The computers may beconnected by a local area network so that userscan share materials stored on a central server, orthey may function independently, with programslimited to what can be stored on an individualhard disk drive or CD-ROM.

The types of applications provided range fromword processing and desktop publishing tointeractive educational programs. Because so manypeople have never used a computer, keyboardingtraining and practice remains a very popular activity,even if there is no Internet connection.Community Learning Centers that serve as distancelearning sites may maintain student records in asecure database, while individuals using the CLC forbusiness purposes may keep proprietary records ontheir own diskettes, which remain in their control.

When a Community Learning Center isestablished in connection with an existinginstitution, it is important to select hardware and

software that is compatible with the existinginfrastructure. Planners should invest in equipmentthat has proven its worth in a particular climate andunder conditions similar to those in which it willhave to function.While used equipment can servea center without problems, recipients should becautious in what they accept from a well-meaningdonor, because the costs and delays associated withunreliable and old equipment can frustrate staff aswell as users.The availability of local service andsupport for equipment is also an importantconsideration. Certain government donors requirethe grantees to purchase equipment and softwarefrom the donor country instead of from localsuppliers.This can cause delays in supply and repair,but other countries are unbundling their aid so thatprojects can acquire whatever equipment isavailable in-country.

Non-Electronic Resources

While much of the excitement engendered byCLCs is based on their ability to offercommunities access to new information andcommunications technologies, a multifunctionalcenter will provide a range of traditional, non-electronic resources as well. Community membersmay value a well-stocked library of books,periodicals, reports, and videotapes, which can bethe “hook” that draws them in.While the Internetis a great source of information, in many casesprint may be the only source for some materialthat is not online. PROBIGUA, a communityproject in Guatemala, started popular readinglibraries in rural areas, and after receiving an awardfrom the Gates Foundation, offered Internet accessand training in many of the same libraries.

Traditional materials are critical components ofdistance learning programs and offer a range ofopportunities for informal, lifelong learning.Videotapes continue to provide excellentsimulation training, and print materials may becirculated on a library loan basis. CommunityLearning Centers with copy machines canreproduce traditional print offerings and itemsprinted from the Internet for patrons to takehome, where floppy disks and CD-ROMs wouldbe of little use.

The digital camera and color printer providean opportunity for teachers, community

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

25

Community

Learning

Centers

organizations, and even local historians to preparenew media using graphics, pictures, and images.Newsletters, curricula, books, signs, and reports canbe prepared in local languages. The wisdom ofelders that was formally only available through theoral culture can be disseminated using the digitalworld. In addition, the immediacy of an image ina digital camera is a quick way to attract theattention of anyone with a curiosity about newtechnologies. Taking a picture of a family memberand then displaying it on a computer is an easymethod of engaging a general audience.

Community Learning Centers also serve as avenue for lectures and seminars, providing neededspace and equipment support. The telecenter inPapallacta, Ecuador is not connected to theInternet. But it provides access to encyclopediasand other information and also serves as anecology center where school classes and individualvisitors start nature hikes and come to learn aboutthe high Andean region where it is situated.CLCs can serve as lightning rods, drawing speakerswho might otherwise not address the community.

Telephony Services

The concept of a central office where people canmake telephone calls on a pay-per-use basis ismore familiar to those in the developing worldthan in societies accustomed to near-universalhome-based telephone access. CLCs expandtraditional telephony services to include faxservices and dial-up access to the Internet.

Of course, the reliability of center services istied to the dependability of the region’scommunications systems. Some of those involvedin CLC development have noted that centersplace pressure on telephone companies to provideservice for which there is not yet sufficientconsumer demand. This is an unavoidableproblem during the early years of a country’semergence into the information age.

Along with providing communications servicesin support of social and economic development,CLCs help to make the market for traditional andnew communications products and services. Theyalso serve in a “tortoise and hare” research anddevelopment relationship with traditional andestablished telecommunications providers. Becausenew forms of telephony and communications are so

fundamental to their success, they can helptraditional telecommunications companies developnew ways of finding solutions to long-termtelecommunications problems. In addition, theyhelp to build community support for innovations intelecommunications and to aggregate demand,which directly and indirectly provides incentives andhelps the telecommunications providers respond tothe new demands that have been created.

Voice over Internet services (VoIP) would seema natural application for a CLC. But in manycountries, especially those where governmenttelephone monopolies earn large payments foroverseas calls, such services have been banned. Inplaces where competition offers a number ofchoices in fixed lines, cell services, and Internetproviders, the VoIP services are very popular. Infact, there are many CLCs that realize the ban onVoIP is not serious, and they offer it without fearof reprisal. CLCs should not underestimate thepopularity of telephony and provide it if possible.In countries from Laos to South Africa, thedemand at the grass roots level for telephoneservice is great, even though more attention hasbeen focused on computer and Internet services.

Online ServicesThe online services provided by CLCs includeaccess to email, listservs, file transfers, chat,WorldWide Web browsing, synchronous andasynchronous conferencing, and audio and videostreaming.Which of these services a CLC canoffer, and with what speed and reliability dependson the technological infrastructure and equipmentto which it has access. Simple email is at the lowend of the technological spectrum, whilesynchronous videoconferencing through videostreaming occupies the high end. To provide high-end services, centers must have access to powerfulcomputers and broad communications bandwidth.The latency or delay in video and audio signalstransmitted by satellite connections may rendersynchronous communications difficult. Spam orjunk email is a growing problem for everyone, butfor centers that must pay for connections by theminute or by amount of data transferred, this ismore than a nuisance; it is an extra cost.

The extent to which community members willuse online services depends on the center’s pricing

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

26

Community

Learning

Centers

structure and the success of its efforts to spreadawareness about potential benefits. It depends aswell on the center’s ability to provide relevanttraining and staff support for individuals attemptingto use the unfamiliar equipment and software. Staffat LearnLink-supported CLCs often foundthemselves serving as technology intermediariesand one-on-one trainers, particularly for new users.At school Internet Learning Centers in Uganda,staff members receive a portion of their incomefrom fees paid by the users of the facilities, which isa strong incentive.

A recent analysis of the impact of electronicnetworking on the research community inEthiopia credited email access for facilitatingparticipation in international seminars, jointconduct of research and authorship of papers, andthe introduction of standard computer operatingsystems. It also facilitated a switch from a time-consuming and hierarchical reporting structure toa flatter, more democratic means ofcommunicating, both nationally andinternationally.The study further illustrates thecost-effectiveness of email compared to sendingfaxes, the previous alternative (Lishan 1996).

A study of networking in Malawi similarlyfound that “the cost of sending…text messagesinternationally by email is…about 20 timescheaper than faxing similar messages…” (Nyirenda1996). It is sometimes difficult to remember thatthe revolution in telecommunications that is partof the Internet Protocol (IP) is only six years oldin North America and has yet to be foundthroughout most of the developing world,especially in rural areas. Accordingly, the cost-performance-content relationships that are nowbecoming evident in more mature Internetmarkets in the developed world have yet toestablish either a presence or a price point indeveloping nations.

Training ServicesCLCs will find that demand for orientation andtraining services is constant and grows steadily. Inmany cases, especially in their early periods ofoperation, CLCs provide the first exposure to ICTin communities. Depending on experience andintended uses, center clients will requireorientation and training in the areas listed below.

Keyboarding skillsMouse skillsBasic computer navigation skillsProductivity software, including wordprocessing, spreadsheet, and presentationssoftwareDesktop publishingDatabase creation and useInteractive multimedia programsEmailWorld Wide Web browsingWorld Wide Web researchWeb site developmentComputer programmingCertification for ICT jobs that requireproficiency in Microsoft networking, Cisco,or Novell systems.

CLCs should develop training programs andsupporting materials to provide consistency andquality control in training and resources for self-directed and self-paced training. Many “off-the-shelf ” resources are available to assist in this effort,and every CLC should establish at least a modesttraining library for patrons’ use.

CLCs typically offer group training programsto minimize the demand on individual stafftime. If this approach is successful, staff canspend most of their time during normal hours ofoperation answering questions and providing“coaching” rather than intensive instruction onan individual basis.

Table Cost-Effectiveness of Email

1 Medium

Fax

Email using 14.4 modem

Email using 28.8 modem

Average KB/min.

40

237

355

Cost/KB

0.18

0.0093

0.0062

Cost ratio to a fax

1:1

1:19

1:29

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

27

Community

Learning

Centers

Functional Requirements and CLC “Models”The functional requirements of a CommunityLearning Center are driven by the level of servicesprovided. The requirements discussed belowrepresent the options available to the majority ofcommunities. In developing countries and in ruralcommunities in the developed world, organizersrarely have the financial and staffing resources orthe technological infrastructure to provide thehigh end of the spectrum.

Three models for the introduction of CLCs aredescribed below.

The “stand-alone” model — This model is basedalmost entirely on the operating revenuesgenerated by the CLC, with non- or partially-recoverable start-up investments from community,national, and international organizations. TheSengerema Telecenter in Tanzania was planned onthis basis. With volunteer labor and donated land,the purpose is to create a new, stand-alone CLCservice right across the lane from the localTanzania Telecom and Communications Ltd.service location. A variation of this model also hasbeen tested in Asunción, Paraguay. There, most ofthe 12 CLCs established occupy re-purposedmunicipal buildings. However, at least one of thelast few established was built by the communitywith local resources. LearnLink also assistedinitiatives in Bulgaria and Haiti to establish stand-alone centers in collaboration with private sectorentrepreneurs.All 10 centers in Bulgaria are stillrunning; there are plans to start new ones, and thetelecenter operators have formed an NGO toenable ongoing collaboration.The Amic@s inParaguay lacked the ongoing resources to keepthem all running after USAID support ended, but11 of the 12 were still in operation in 2002.

The “adoption” model — In the adoption model,a CLC is hosted within an existing institution,where many of the costs for space, administration,and general operations are integrated into theexpanded services of the host organization. Whilethe service is adopted for the entire community, itis located in an established institution such as anNGO, college or school, local government office,or church organization. Situated in an existing

library building that is owned by the local regionalgovernment, the telecenter in Nakaseke, Uganda,follows this model, as do the LearnLink CLCs inParaguay, Ghana, and Benin.The Gates Foundationhas offered support for more than 300 libraries inChile to offer Internet access, and the Chileangovernment has more than matched the $9 milliondonated in 2001.

The “companion” model — Rather than beingfocused squarely on access to the entirecommunity, this approach aims to enhance theexisting special interest services of an establishedinstitution that, over time, can grow to meet moregeneral community needs. For example, aninvestment can be made to enhance ICTs within acollege, hospital, or community organization thateventually can migrate into broader public accessas a “companion” service. The Indonesian PEPs(People’s Economic Posts) follow this model, andLearnLink is implementing it in teacher traininginstitutions in Guatemala, Morocco, Namibia, andUganda. Enlace Quiché in rural Guatemala beganas a program to help young teachers utilize ICTsto learn and then teach children to read and writeMayan languages. Many CLCs in the UnitedStates are part of other types of organizations suchas residences for older citizens, literacy centers, andpublic housing projects.

Each of the foregoing models has strengths andweaknesses, and in the context of the LearnLinkinitiative, these models have been field tested andassessed to understand which approach performsmost successfully in offering services, achievingsustainability, and reaching target segments of thecommunity in particular settings. See the casestudies at the end of this model for moreinformation on specific contexts.

Recently, many governments have announcedwidespread connectivity plans that sometimesinclude establishing public access centers as partof national programs. Among other regions,nearly all Latin American governments are takingsteps to offer access to digital technologies, anddoing so on a mass scale. Programs such as E-Mexico (Mexico), InfoCentros (El Salvador,Venezuela), Compartel Comunitarios (Argentina),Telecentros Polivalentes (Ecuador), Compartel

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

28

Community

Learning

Centers

(Columbia), and Costarricense.com (Costa Rica)often work in concert with NGOs, communitycenters, libraries, or local government offices,where the public access centers are housed. Inaddition to providing access to officialgovernment information and perhaps services, thecenters also make a range of ICTs available to thepublic and often provide usage training ataffordable costs. Long term results from this newtype of public access model are not yet available,but the impact of the undertaking on a nationalscale will be interesting for ICT advocates whooften call for governmental efforts to help extendICT access.

People FirstWhile the role of ICTs in development assistance isachieving more and more emphasis, it is importantto remember that it is people with skills who makeICTs work. Many successful ICT initiatives followa “core user” or Train-the-Trainer approach tohuman resource development, which begins withintensive training among early adopters withincommunity institutions that use the CLC. Overtime, the CLC comes to serve as a supportmechanism for these users as they market and“socialize” the ICTs within communityinstitutions.

A second fundamental principal is that CLCsmust be demonstration projects and not just serviceprovision activities. Unless plans are made for thosewith key metropolitan institutions to learn andbenefit from the investment in CLCs, they generallywill find reasons to dismiss or ignore the benefitsgenerated by the innovation. Accordingly, capacity-building plans and programs need to be developedto ensure that those who are presented with CLCaccess come to understand the benefits of ICTs andappreciate the opportunity to learn to use them.

Access-Awareness-DiffusionThe Internet has many cheerleaders who want to share the enabling effects they discover byusing this powerful new tool. But ICTs indevelopment includes more than just the Internet. It is important to determine how thetechnologies are to be made available and whomthey are intended to assist. There are threemodels for this type of assistance:

Access: Access refers to the relativelystraightforward task of making Internet,computing, and telecommunications tools availablewhere they did not exist previously. Once thetechnical issues have been resolved, those whoalready know and understand the advantages ofusing the Internet will take advantage of it. Withaccess, a relatively small segment of the communityis assisted while the costs associated with entry andstart-up are the lowest among the three options.

Awareness: the awareness model involves buildingorientation, familiarization, and demonstrationprograms on top of the new access that has beenprovided. This takes time, financial resources, andplanning, but it reaches beyond the technical eliteto those early adopters who, when given theopportunity, take the time to learn and integrateICTs into their professional and personal lives.

Diffusion: the diffusion of ICTs and the skillsnecessary for their use among both early and lateadopters in developing societies is a time-consuming, resource-intensive,“body contact”activity.This is, however, how real markets arecreated for self-sustaining ICT products and services.

In a sector where language often can be imprecise,where no taxonomy exists for impact andobjectives, and where there is considerable growthand development, it is important to differentiateamong the three foregoing types of interventionsto determine which are appropriate for theintroduction of a CLC.

Connectivity OptionsOften the greatest challenge in a CLC isconnectivity. Infrastructure and telecommuni-cations pricing structures often make connectivitytechnically difficult and prohibitively expensive.As mentioned earlier, connectivity is not anessential feature of a CLC, though it is a preferredone. In planning for connectivity, it is importantto be aware of the technological options for levelsof connectivity in Community Learning Centers,including the following:

Land-based fiber optics, which provide rapid,broadband access to the Internet but areexpensive and do not currently exist in most

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

29

Community

Learning

Centers

places. In others, the fiber passes through atown, but there is no connection to it for localservice provision.Dial-up service over standard telephone lines,which offers slower, more limited capabilitybut has the benefit of using existingtelephone lines.ISDN (integrated services digital network), anolder technology, and DSL (Digital SubscriberLine) offer high speeds for those living near thetelephone company central offices.Digital cable modem services usually deliveredwith home television programming.Frame Relay is a telephone companytechnology that enables interconnection oflocal area networks. It is available in more than100 countries and may be an option for anetwork of CLCs in a region.Asymmetrical services involving high-speeddownlink and outgoing transmission usingexisting terrestrial systems has been usedextensively in rural Canada to supportSchoolNet programs. This is a cost-efficient,low-maintenance, transitional technology thatis worthy of consideration.Satellite technologies include traditional C andKu bands,VSATs (very small apertureterminals), DBSs (direct broadcast satellites),and LEOs (low-earth orbiting satellites).Two-way VSATs have proven to be useful for CLCsin Uganda, Colombia, rural Canada, and theUnited States.Wireless technologies, including cellular mobilecommunications, broadband, radio, andmicrowave.The popularity of 802.11b (Wi-Fi)networks4 is growing at a time when othertelecommunications services are static. Intelpredicts that soon every laptop will be soldwith a wireless capability.

There is no best solution across the board. Somecommunities make use of several options to haveback up connections or reach a distanttelecommunications hub from an isolated region.Each nation, city, region, and locality exists withinits own envelope of pre-existing costs, regulations,available technology, and infrastructure. Thoseconditions determine the best solution for aspecific community.

Hardware and Software NeedsPlanners are often faced with a dilemma as theymake hardware and software investment choices.On the one hand, they want to supportburgeoning national hardware and softwareindustries. On the other, they want to minimizepotential problems by investing in proven, name-brand products, which often means using importsfrom the United States and Europe.

At present, a reasonable compromise seems tobe to support local hardware importers, systemsintegrators, tech support services, and trainers, whileinvesting in equipment from well-establishedcorporations. Likewise, the most robustproductivity software, including office suites thatfeature word processing, database management, andspreadsheet manipulation, comes from industrializedcountries. However, educational programs thatrequire sensitivity to local culture and language arebest developed within a nation’s borders.

The issue of compatibility, once significant, nolonger poses a huge problem. The field has“shaken out,” so that a number of proprietary,non-compatible systems are no longer beingmarketed. The remaining manufacturers haveadopted a range of international standards that,while not entirely eliminating the need to addresscompatibility issues, has greatly reduced it.

Application software programs relevant toCommunity Learning Center needs fall into severalcategories: personal and business productivity,instructional management, and education. Personaland business productivity tools include programs forword processing, spreadsheets and databases, email,budget management, scheduling, file maintenance,desktop publishing, and the creation of electronicproducts for market. Instructional managementprograms help educators prepare for instruction andkeep records. The range of educational applicationsincludes drill and practice programs, often used formath and foreign languages; reading comprehensionprograms; simulation programs, often used forscience and geography instruction; referencematerials, often hyperlinked for ease in cross-referencing; collaborative learning programs,designed to develop group decision-making skillsand professional networks; and workplace skills,focusing on both content and subject matteracquisition and introductions to new pedagogy.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

30

Community

Learning

Centers

Those responsible for selecting software andprogram applications often lack the criterianeeded to make the selection. The criteriarecommended by the Academy for EducationalDevelopment's Technology Center focuses onthe intuitiveness of the user interface—thecontrols and screen presentation the user seesand the degree of control they offer, such as theability to pause and review material, movequickly to and from narrowly defined segmentsof information, and otherwise not be “heldhostage” by the program.

In addition, buyers should consider theprogram’s compatibility with other software andhardware platforms, as well as the speed ofcompany upgrades and maintenance of theproduct line. Educational programs should bedesigned in a manner that includes linear versusnon-linear organization, assessment andremediation strands, an intelligent “tutor” orfacilitator, hyper linking of resources and themes,credibility, and objectivity of source material.

Production value also should be considered,such as the clarity of the audio and video,professionalism of appearance (including screendesign, color, and fonts), incorporation of multiplelanguages in a single application or availability ofthe same product in multiple languages, culturalrelevance, and affordable cost.

The LearnLink project in Guatemala, EnlaceQuiché, produced a range of local materials forteaching Mayan languages to teachers and enablingteachers to instruct children in reading andwriting the Mayan language they speak at home.The materials include CD-ROMs enhanced byMayan art, language games, and pedagogicalmaterial, and the printed matter includesdictionaries translated into both Spanish andMayan languages.

In government, commercial, and social sectors,there is growing interest in open source software.A working group in Latin America, Los Tigres deLinux, has assembled a turn-key, open sourcesystem for administering a telecenter. This is dueto the growing maturity of Linux software and adesire to have an alternative to the more expensiveMicrosoft products, which remain the mostpopular, if not standard, application for CLCs.There are many political and philosophical reasons

for support of alternatives to Microsoft, yet all ofthese solutions need to inter-operate with thedominant system. CLCs engaged in training mayneed to provide Microsoft products becauseprospective employers usually require proficiencywith Microsoft programs.

StaffingThere is little question that the most importantdecision that will be made in the operating life ofa CLC is the selection of the skills, experiences,and qualities in the person(s) who will manage thecenter. Especially at the onset, the characteristicsof such persons are critical predictors for thesuccess or failure of a CLC.

Decisions about whether a CommunityLearning Center requires one staff member orfive, full-time or part-time, usually are driven by the services it offers and the demand itdevelops. More important than the number isthe type of staff member most likely to ensurethe center’s success.

Technical sophistication may be less importantthan the ability to work with the community.Staff can be trained to operate hardware andsoftware, but the necessary people skills that willsuccessfully integrate the center are much moredifficult to teach. Successful centers have workedbecause of the personal ability of one or twoindividuals to rally the community around thenew endeavor, with its seemingly exotic andsometimes out-of-place appearance and functions.Staff must maintain their enthusiasm andconviction despite initial slow acceptance and use.They must be able to infuse the community withenthusiasm to use and embrace the facilities andtraining and engender ongoing support.

The majority of developing country centers todate have not had the luxury of diversified staffing.Most have been limited to a single director whomay be able to draft volunteers and students toprovide additional help. Ideally, however, a CLCshould have the following:

a director who provides strategic planning,marshals community support, seeks funding,interacts with donors and other stakeholders,and supervises daily operations;a technician who maintains and services thehardware, loads and manages software, conducts

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

31

Community

Learning

Centers

training classes, and provides daily technicalsupport to users; andan administrative assistant responsible forscheduling center use, maintaining center records, supervising the library, and providingoperational support to the director.

Planning and Implementation

Assessing the Environment

A critical element in the establishment of aCommunity Learning Center is the initialassessment, done in part to determine whether aCLC is appropriate for a given community. Atypical assessment to study the feasibility of a CLCin a given area will look at several importantaspects of the environment: community learningneeds and interest; technical infrastructure;institutional capacity; human resource capacity andfinancial feasibility.

Community Learning Needs and Interests

Assessing potential community support may bedifficult because a community cannot support whatit doesn’t understand, and ICTs are not easy toexplain. To gauge potential community support,planners may choose to view the area’s record ofsupport for new initiatives that address economic,educational, social, and democracy-building needs.They also may consider the community’s history ofworking with multilateral, bilateral, and nationalfunding agencies, its base of potential trainees, andthe regional telecommunications infrastructure.

It is best to focus the assessment on existinglearning needs, broadly defined within a community.Interviews with a cross-section of communityleaders and members can highlight communityperceptions of learning and educational needs.

Once initial learning needs are identified, thosedoing the assessment can begin matchingtechnology-aided solutions, such as computer-assisted instruction and distance learning, to theindicated problems. The assessment of technicalinfrastructure will come into play here because itis important not to propose an impractical solutionat the outset or to force a match.

At this point, the assessment of communityinterest should include some communitydemonstration, if possible, of technologies that would

be provided via a CLC. The demonstration shouldbe rooted in the earlier problem identification. Thisis important because community leaders andmembers are most likely uninformed about thetechnologies and their potential benefits, and talkabout such matters is usually inadequate—peopleneed to actually see how these tools can help meetsome of their priority learning needs. Multimedianotebook computers, Internet content captured to ahard disk or CD-ROM (to avoid the need forremote connectivity during demonstrations), andportable projectors can aid the demonstration effort.The objective of this stage of the assessment is togarner community “buy-in” for the effort.

Technical Infrastructure

Several elements of the technical infrastructure shouldbe examined at the assessment stage, including:

local availability of hardware, software, andmaintenance services;local availability of technicians;capabilities and limitations of the electrical gridand telecommunications network; andnational and local attitudes towardtelecommunications regulation and emergingprivate sector competition.

This component of the assessment will helpdetermine what possible technology mix might bereliably employed at a CLC and will indicate whatdeficiencies might have to be addressed before aCLC can be established, such as provision of agenerator or extension of telephone lines to a site.

Institutional Capacity

When a CLC will be established in collaborationwith an existing institution, it is important duringthe assessment stage to examine the institution’scapacity to carry the effort forward. This involvesa close look at the institution’s mission statementor founding objectives to ensure a proper fit forthe CLC effort. It also involves the institution’sexperience with implementation and managementof innovative activities—in other words, theinstitution’s history of creativity in program orproject implementation. An institution’sexperience with community outreach andcommunity services is critical, especially if this isto be a principal aim of the proposed CLC.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

32

Community

Learning

Centers

Human Resource Capacity

Regardless of who will be implementing the CLC,it is important to assess the capacity of the existinghuman resource base. As mentioned earlier,whether they are municipal staff, NGO employees,or volunteers, CLC staff must offer a good blend ofpeople and technical skills to be successful. It isimportant to determine the specific training theseindividuals need and train them adequately in theearly stages of CLC development.

In the same vein, a general description of thecommunity’s human resource capacity is alsowarranted. This would address the most likelytraining needs of community members, frominstruction in computer basics upward, based onthe assessment of community learning needs andinterest. This assessment of human resourcecapacity will help guide the development andtailor training materials suited to the needs oftarget CLC users.

Financial Feasibility

As one recent study summarizes,“the rulesgoverning [CLC] economics are not complex,but they are unforgiving.”

If a telecenter revenue inflow does not cover expensesand generate a surplus to replace equipment-- if it cannotachieve full financial viability--inevitable equipmentbreakdowns and obsolescence will eventually force thetelecenter to shut down. If the telecenter does notgenerate sufficient income to cover operation andmaintenance costs—operational viability—the telecentermay have to shut down even sooner.5

There are different financial models for theestablishment of CLCs. These can range from fulldonor support for setting up and running theCLC for a period of time (usually one to threeyears) to cost-sharing arrangements where thelocal implementing partner donates space andperhaps staff in exchange for initial equipment,supplies, and technical assistance. (The lattermodel benefits from local partner buy-in andinvestment, perhaps resulting in a greater sense oflocal ownership.) Regardless of the initialfinancial model chosen for setting up the CLC, anassessment of financial feasibility is important,particularly the following questions:

What type of short-term financing is required(site preparation, equipment, materialsproduction, staffing costs, etc.)?What are the various partners and donorsexpected to contribute?What are the likely long-term financial needs(i.e., for equipment maintenance, upgradingand replacement, telecommunications costs,utilities, salaries, etc.)?What is the local implementing institution’srecord of managing donor resources?What is the capacity of the implementinginstitution to run a CLC on a cost-recoverybasis (i.e., can the institution charge fees andmanage revenues)?What level of fees might be considered“reasonable” for a pricing structure designedfor cost recovery, not necessarily profit?What level of community demand can beanticipated?What is the local community’s ability to payfor services?

One of the difficulties in devising sustainabilityplans for CLCs is that targeting the under-servedand the poor requires sources of revenue beyondclient fees, unless sliding fee scales enable higherincome groups to subsidize the lower. The riskis that the poor will lose out to those better ableto pay, thus jeopardizing the CLC’s “publicgood” potential.

While some stress the purity of the CLCmission, others argue for more entrepreneurismand attention to market forces in CLCs. Forexample, one study of community accessinitiatives in rural areas identified the factorsmost critical for CLC sustainability (i.e. costs,revenues, business models, policy, and capacity)and described a variety of ways in which suchcenters can improve financial prospects. Some ofthese include

Keeping costs low (reducing capital costs withnew devices and wireless, using appropriatetechnologies to reduce recurrent costs)Generating revenue from diverse fees andservices (focusing first on core communicationapplications, promoting gradual growth ofother revenue sources, creating jobs andrevenue with remote ICT-enabled services)

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

33

Community

Learning

Centers

Benefiting from network effects, scope, andscale (aggregating markets, exploitingeconomies of scale and scope, designing ruralservice providers, adding telecenters to existingbusinesses, adding businesses to telecenters,promoting rural-urban cooperation)Supporting rural access with policy (adaptingto dynamics of rural markets and limitedompetition, removing regulatory barriers torural service, promoting universal accesspolicies and supporting incentives).

A variety of CLC models are operating today,yielding new insights into appropriate sustainabilityapproaches for particular contexts. In themeantime, a continuing focus on the statedpurpose of a CLC, plus attention to localconditions and financial feasibility options, can helpensure that target groups and needs are addressedwhile financial sustainability is achieved.

Monitoring and Evaluation

At the minimum, CLCs should track 1) thenumber of users; 2) user demographics; 3) thenumber of transactions; 4) the nature of eachtransaction; 5) the duration of user sessions; and 6)patterns of use by day, week, month, and year.

To the extent possible, computer-trackingsoftware should be used to facilitate record keeping.All users should be asked to register the first timethey use the CLC and perhaps complete a personalprofile. Confidential personal profiles that recordgender, educational levels, income levels, and otherdemographic data can help CLC operatorsdetermine if special efforts need to be made toensure equitable access to traditionally neglectedgroups of users, such as girls and women, the lesseducated, and the poor. Each user should sign inand out at each session and note the time. Usersshould be given the opportunity to comment onthe quality of training, facilities, equipment,services, and staff. This usually can be accomplishedthrough feedback forms that users can completeafter training sessions or at subsequent visits to theCLC. A suggestion box is often a useful tool forsoliciting informal comments from users.

Some of the most challenging yet mostrevealing types of data to collect are userimpressions of the impact of the CLC on their

lives. To collect these data, user feedback formscan include specific questions about how accessto CLC resources is helping users, who can beencouraged to give specific responses aboutwhether and how they feel the CLC isbenefiting them.

The design of both formative and summativeevaluations at the outset will clarify the types ofdata the center needs to collect. Donors oftenhave specific measures they expect or require fromactivities they fund, and these should be clarifiedup front with the local implementing institutionso that the monitoring and evaluation system canbe designed to meet everyone’s needs.

GovernanceA range of ownership and governance options existsfor a CLC activity. No one model has proven moreeffective across all venues. Community LearningCenters may be owned by communitycooperatives, local NGOs, state agencies, orindividuals, either singly or in partnership. Theymay have governing and/or advisory boards, or theymay simply report to their sponsors.

Developing country pilot projects established bynational or international agencies may be funded forspecific periods, with the expectation thatownership will be transferred to a local group ororganization after the pilot phase. Transfer ofownership and control often comes with a cessationor cutback in funding so that the center facesgovernance and economic challengessimultaneously. However, if the CLC is to be areplicable model, the center will have a managementcommittee of representatives of national andinternational agencies who contribute to theinvestment to initiate the service. Also, there will bea local steering committee made up of leaders fromthose agencies that stand to benefit from the serviceand have helped identify “core users” to participatein the early training provided by the CLC.

Policy IssuesAmong the issues that CLC founders must addressare telecommunications regulations, nationalattitudes toward access to information, protectionof user-specific data, and intellectual propertyrights (copyright) protection. Lack of attention toany of these issues in the short term may result in

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

34

Community

Learning

Centers

long-term problems. The governing documentscreated for a center should include clear guidelinesand policies in each area.

Some policy issues are susceptible totechnology-based solutions. For example, asencryption technology continues to evolve, dataintegrity, security, and personal information aboutusers will be less susceptible to tampering andtheft. Likewise, when it becomes commonplacefor all users and individual pieces of informationto carry encoded digital “thumbprints,” it will beeasier to track violations of copyright andcommission of other online crimes.Unfortunately, the use of such digital trackingmeasures increases the potential abuse of personalprivacy by the government and the private sector.In some cases, societies will have to decide at thelegislative and regulatory levels whether the cure isworse than the disease.

In many countries, access to ICTs remainshampered by government control of thetelecommunications sector. To become fullparticipants in the information age, these countrieswill have to reform their systems, ceding a greaterrole to a competitive private sector. Movingbeyond pilot ICT projects toward a strong nationalsystem will require an enormous infusion of capital,the type of investment that has traditionally comefrom private corporations that operate within astable regulatory environment. State monopolieshave resisted giving up control of basic services,which has slowed partially telecommunicationreform efforts in some developing countries.

Those championing the CLC in theirjurisdiction will come to understand how nationaltelecommunications regulation, infrastructure, andservices require change. As ICT innovators, CLCactors can help inform, sensitize, and mobilizenational resources and institutions to acceleratetheir entry into the information economy. It iscritical that international and national organizationsinvolved in CLC sponsorship engage in capacity-building initiatives to help the dominant andinfluential national regulatory, governing, andlicensing agencies understand and experience thebenefits of ICT adoption. Fundación Chasquinet inEcuador has been providing input on a nationalstrategy for universal service so that communityneeds will be considered in the strategic plan.

Strategies for SuccessWhile Community Learning Center experiencesdiffer based on purpose, location, size, funding,community support, and a number of othervariables, there is common agreement on anumber of strategies for success.

Secure support from senior policy makers.

Communities accept technological interventionsmuch more rapidly and fully when it is clear thatthere is support from the top.

To the extent possible, get the community involved

before establishing the center. Identify keycommunity leaders and involve them in planning-stage decision making.

Find and employ a “champion.” Centers withthe greatest success and staying power havebenefited from the untiring efforts of a singleindividual who was committed to the cause.The “champion” is generally someone withexcellent social outreach skills who is respectedin the community.

Conduct proactive outreach to the community. Donot wait for them to come to you. Instead, targetorganizations in the community and bring them infor demonstrations, free tutorials, receptions, andother introductory events.

Get a “nose under the tent.” Offer physicalspace for meetings even if no electronic servicesare involved.

Conduct ongoing training classes (beyond theintroductory sessions) to help community members

become comfortable and increasingly skilled withICT/CLC hardware and software.

Provide ongoing training to CLC personnel sothat they remain current with evolvingtechnology and are able to support CLCdevelopment while serving as a valuable resourceto the community.

Connect with other centers to provide mutualsupport, share lessons learned, create buyingcollectives, and otherwise create strength in numbers.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

35

Community

Learning

Centers

Publicize early successes within the community.

Sometimes this must be handled carefully to avoidengendering resentment among traditional powerbases. Share the credit for success, even when thatinvolves creative reporting.

Invest in resources that can build on each other.

Create a plan for increasing capabilities and add onlythe hardware, software, and applications that supportthe plan. Avoid short-term, equipment with notrack record for service, and applications withincompatible or inappropriate languages and culturalreferences. Adopt “state of the market” technologiesthat are proven, have an established service record,and that many people already know how to use.

Look beyond the pilot funding phase. Plan early forfinancial sustainability. Draft a proposed fee-for-service plan and solicit feedback from communitymembers. Enlist their support in proposed fund-raising initiatives. Understand that the entry-levelpricing will necessarily be different from the pricescharged when the center is self-sustaining.

Use the center’s online presence to bring the

community into the international eye. Mostcommunities appreciate the enhanced visibility,which can bring economic developmentopportunities and foreign investment.

Potential Problems, Pitfalls and PotholesAs with any new, technology-rich intervention,Community Learning Centers may fall victim totheft, vandalism, accidents, and natural disasters. Tosome extent, planning and vigilance can reduce theserisks. The ultimate key lies in the extent to whichcenter “champions” succeed in garnering community-wide support for the new venture. When successful,CLC staff has found that communities will nottolerate threats to the new resource.

Less tangible threats may come fromorganizational sources often outside thecommunity. LearnLink consultant Richard Fuchsdescribes one such problem in Uganda and hisrecommended solution:

Metropolitan institutions don’t appreciate it whenthe “outback” has better tools, skills and resourcesthan they do. In the words of one of ourKampala collaborators,“We shouldn’t do that.

Then the people of Nakaseke will know moreabout it than we do.” This natural disposition ofmetropolitan institutions has to be acknowledgedand respected. It shouldn’t, however, besuccessful in dominating how resources getdeployed as they will tend to consume most ofthe benefits directly. Metropolitan institutions do,however, need to be accommodated.Our solution was to introduce what we called“capacitation programs” that would link theNakaseke telecenter to these Kampala-basedmetropolitan agencies. This way they couldbenefit from training and access to the newtechnology. Additionally, we proposed linkingsome of the more well-endowed internationalagencies in Kampala with both their lateradopting national counterparts and the ruraltelecenter. (Fuchs, 1997)

A related problem is the tendency for certain usersor sectors to dominate Community LearningCenter services, narrowing the center’s overallutility to the community. It is difficult for CLCsstruggling for economic sustainability to resistcatering to the demands of users or a particularsector that provides consistent business. However,Community Learning Centers with mandates tostrengthen educational resources or to provideenhanced services and information must stayfocused on their primary agendas.

While they should remain flexible insupporting a range of services, they should notallow narrow business or gender interests to prevailover the greater good of the community. Norshould they compete with private sector initiativesthat arise because of the awareness and diffusionimpacts of the CLC in the community. One ofthe CLCs LearnLink helped to establish in Ghananoticed, after several months of operation, that itsclient base was made up of predominantly youngmales. To reach other community segments towhich the NGO operating the CLC felt anobligation, CLC staff arranged special weeks fortargeted outreach to special community segments.For example, a Women’s Week was held to draw inwomen’s groups and gender-focused NGOpartners. A Teachers’Week appealed to public andprivate school teacher to learn more about howICTs could benefit their students and teaching. A

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

36

Community

Learning

Centers

Health Care Workers’Week focused on thisimportant segment of the community, and so on.

The vast majority of clients in nearly 30Learnlink CLCs in five countries belonged tothe target groups—NGOs, health workers, smallbusinesspeople, farmers, public servants,educators and, of course, students. Initially,youth tend to lead the way. However, in everycase, the larger community followed, especiallyafter effective marketing, outreach, andopportunities for orientation.

Sustainability Guidelines for theCommunity Learning CenterThe issue of sustainability is one of the mostchallenging dimensions of CLC investment, start-up, and “grow-out” and there are several modelsare indicated below.

The Medium-Term Market Maker: The CLC isseen as only a short-medium-term mechanism totrigger accelerated innovation in the informationeconomy with “back-of-the-market” communities.In this case, the CLC is enhancing ICT awarenessand skills throughout community organizationsand businesses so they can develop and maintaincapacity to innovate and adopt ICTs. In thismodel, the CLC is a social and economicdevelopment project focused on helping to createa market for local ICT services because of thediffusion effect of the CLC in the community.

The Service Extension: The CLC becomes anintegral part of one of the initial sponsoringorganizations. This could be a school, localgovernment, cooperative, hospital, chamber ofcommerce, or economic development agency.After the initial investment, the CLC is financedby one of the initial sponsors.

The CLC “Business:” The CLC becomes afinancially self-sustaining business entity, whetheron a profit or “not-for-profit” basis.The initialpricing strategies need to reflect an attractive “entrycost,” and the demand for services needs to beanchored in several markets within the community.

Whichever model is adopted—and they canchange over time—the start-up CLC or telecenter

will have to incorporate the following into itsinitial operations plan:

A strategic planIdentified potential funding sourcesDiversified funding sourcesA fee schedule acceptable to the communityand based on real costsAn understanding of the political andeconomic climateA working model of organizationalcollaborationQuality assurance techniques

Selected USAID Telecenter Experience

1. USAID-funded Community Learning Centers,

one of the intervention models identified by theLearnLink project, in Paraguay and Haiti, plusBenin, Bulgaria, and Ghana. See case studies atthe end of this chapter on telecenters in Benin,Ghana, and Bulgaria. Other information on CLCsis located in the endnotes to the case studies forBenin, Bulgaria, and Ghana.

In Paraguay, the first of 12 pilot centersestablished in Asunción opened in January 1998.These centers are known as aulas municipales decomunicación, información y aprendizaje, or amic@s,which, loosely translated, means “municipalcommunication, information, and learningcenters.” In addition, a range of learning tools,including interactive educational programs onCD-ROM and vocational instruction materials,were provided. The amic@s provided Internetaccess, free email services, and free orientationsessions to introduce the computers, systems, andservices available. LearnLink assisted themunicipality in monitoring the use of the centersand evaluating their impact on the communityduring this pilot project.

The Paraguay amic@s identified and employeda local champion who was energetic and persistentin his efforts to publicize the amic@s and toinvolve influential members of the community inintroductory events. He had excellent contactswith high technology firms as well as socialorganizations in each neighborhood.The emphasisof the amic@s was on strengthening formal andinformal learning, so early activities focused onengaging those concerned with education in

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

37

Community

Learning

Centers

Asunción. Many of the users were students whodid not have access to computers in school or athome.The CLCs opened at a time of political andfinancial instability for the country.Themunicipality planned to automate many of itsmunicipal services, and the centers were designedto provide access to these services, though this wasachieved to only a limited extent. Nevertheless,there was a strong demand for computer andInternet access, and at least 11 of the 12 CLCs arestill running though the project ended in 2001.

In Haiti, the LearnLink project with its partnersfocused on three main activities. First, the projecthelped Haitian Internet Service Providers (ISPs)improve their operational capabilities byrecommending strategies for strengthening theirnetworks and offering new value-added services totheir consumers. Second, the project contributedto the creation of a national .ht domain name inHaiti by delivering equipment, training, andtechnical assistance to a Haitian consortiumassigned responsibility for the task. Finally, theproject helped establish two public accesstelecenters in the secondary cities of Jacmel and LesCayes, selected a Haitian organization to managethe telecenters, procured computer equipment forthe centers, and provided business and technicaltraining to telecenter staff. The telecenter in LesCayes, in particular, has been extremely successful,offering a wide range of training programs andICT services to surrounding schools, localbusinesses and other local beneficiaries.

2. ITU/UNESCO/IDRC Multipurpose

Community Telecenter Project in Africa. TheInternational Telecommunications Union (ITU),UNESCO, and the International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC) joined together todevelop five African Multipurpose CommunityTelecenters on a pilot basis. The purpose was toexplore and refine telecenter models, disseminateinformation about the process, and create apartnership model of collaboration amonginternational, national, and local organizations.

The first of the centers was launched in early1998 in Nakaseke, Uganda. The telecenter wasowned by Local Council 3 of the Lowero Districtbut also received support from the Uganda Postand Telecommunications Corporation.

Organizers targeted educators, health workers,and public administrators in Nakaseke believingthat innovators in each sector would draw in theircolleagues. For example, one potential user wouldbe the Primary Teachers’ College, which deliverscontinuing education to primary school teachers infive regional districts, through 31 regionalcoordinators. By offering the coordinators access toemail and other Internet-based services, the qualityof the educational training could be improved.

After serving as a high profile telecenter forseveral years, a fire in June, 2001, destroyed much ofthe telecenter and part of the print library housedin the center. Because it had become such a centralservice in the town, within days a fundraising eventraised money from local donors and someinternational agencies to begin repairing and thenrebuilding the center. In-kind donations of servicesfrom builders, welders, and artisans helped theeffort to restore service.With the assistance of theBelgian government, Nakaseke is now becomingthe hub in a network of Community MultimediaCentres (as they currently are called).

4. In Sweden and the United Kingdom, thetelecenter emphasis has been on providing facilitiesto enable telecommuting, or telework, while oftenincorporating a community action social agenda.In Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, andAustralia, the emphasis has been on reachingremote, rural communities to enable them toaccess otherwise unavailable services and to buildlocal capacity.

5. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, theRemote Community Service Telecentreshttp://www.col.org/telecentres/Telecentres_complete.pdf (project description) orwww.rcst.net/flash/model.htm, a second generationof wireless telecenters, was established using two-wayVSAT telecommunications organized aroundaffordable “bandwidth-on-demand.” Medical,education, small business, and governmentinformation services were integrated into a commonfacility that divided the cost of the telecomcapability among the entire community.This is anexample of the way the model CLC can evolve intoa community network that serves even those whodo not physically enter the facility.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

38

Community

Learning

Centers

6. In the United States, the CommunityTechnology Center network (CTCNet) began as agroup of urban CLCs that served low incomepopulations in central cities. It has expanded toinclude more than 700 centers located in smalltowns and rural areas as well. Many of the centersare located in community-based organizations, but anew program has opened centers in public schools,where the facilities can be used after hours by youngpeople and adults.Very few of these CLCs operatewith funds exclusively from the local community.Most depend on outside grants or allocations fromgovernment funding and the sale of services.

As CLCs proliferate around the world, the suiteof services tends to increase. In other cases,organizations are providing access and training toICT as just one of many services, some of whichare not focused on technology. Provision of ICTsto clients is necessary but not central. Somecenters continue to offer basic computer andInternet services and introductory training, whileothers specialize on courses and services thatattract the most paying users. In many developedcountries, government supports the centers as partof a safety net of services for those who cannotafford them but many developing countries donot have tax revenues to sustain a CLC. MostCLCs begin with the goal of serving theunderserved, and this sometimes results in tensionwhen the need for paying clientele becomes moreimportant than the original goal of helping thosewho cannot afford access.

7. Somos@telecentros Organizing existing CLCs ortelecenters into national and regional supportnetworks is a trend that began in the late 1990’s.There are CLC associations in Australia, the UnitedStates, Hungary, and several in Latin America.Somos@telecentros is a regional consortium ofCLCs and national networks located in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean—and the largestregional organization founded to link up telecenterpractitioners. Located in 14 countries, primarilySpanish and Portuguese-speaking areas, theconsortium is based in Quito, Ecuador andsupported by Fundación Chaquinet. The group runsa listserv and collects and provides access to aclearinghouse of papers, telecenter stories, businessplans, photographs, and personal accounts. It has

organized national conferences in several countriesand in August 2001, convened a meeting of regionaltelecenter workers for training and personalnetworking. Many of the attendees had never lefttheir country, and the training sessions helped themunderstand there were others around the regionwith some of the same problems and experiences.

This national and regional capacity building,especially among people with a commonlanguage, is a powerful force for strengthening avirtual organization.They have worked online ongovernance issues for the consortium and learnedhow to become a legal entity. Clarifying goals andways to run a regional organization helpsindividual workers plan for the future of their ownCLC.This model of cooperation helped inspireUNESCO to convene a meeting of telecenterleaders to form a global help desk where problemsnot easily solved at a local or national level couldbe referred elsewhere for resolution.

International PortalsAs the number of organizations, companies, andgovernments establishing CLCs has grown, severalefforts to track the activity have developedindependent of each other. In mid-2002, forexample, UNESCO’s Information Society Divisionbegan building the International TelecentresResources Site (www.unesco.org/webworld/build_info/gct/index.shtml) that collects project andtechnology information with links to many localorganizations involved in these initiatives.TheInternational Development Research Centre(IDRC) in Canada hosts a site with informationabout its projects in Asia, Latin America, and Africathrough 2001 (www.idrc.ca/pan/telecentres.html),and the United Nations Development Programme’sInfo21 project maintains an up-to-date site(www.undp.org/info21/index5.htm) that collectsnews and project information from local sources. Inthe United States, Community Technology CenterNetworks (CTCs) tracks CLC activity in its morethan 650 member projects as well as in the AmericaConnects Consortium and NeighborhoodNetworks. In 2002, the Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation awarded a large grant to the OnlineComputer Library Center (OCLC) and its partnersto establish a portal dedicated to supporting thepublic library and other access projects.

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

39

Community

Learning

Centers

Looking Ahead NUA, the world’s leading source for Internetstatistics, estimates that in May 2002, there were580 million people online out of a totalpopulation of 6.2 billion.With less than 10 percent of the world online, there still exists a strongdemand for ways to bring access, training, andrelevant content to the rest of the world.The costof hardware continues to drop, and several effortsto produce low cost devices for use in developingmarkets have been publicized.These include theIndian Simputer, the Brazilian volkscomputer, andthe Jhai Foundation’s solid state, low power LinuxPC for use in rural Laos. Others have adaptedpowerful game machines like the X-box andPlayStation for Internet use. Connectivity optionshave increased from a technology perspective, butthe current telecommunications industry is in adepression since and this is likely to slow downdeployment of lower cost Internet services inmany areas of the developed and developingworld.

The rise of the open source software movement,and especially that of Linux, has provided both achallenge and a hope for the CLC movement.Many CLCs provide classes in popular businesssoftware such as Microsoft office. Open sourcesolutions or software such as Sun Microsystems’ StarOffice allow CLCs to use less expensive butcompatible software, but this does not meet thetraining needs where job applicants need to showproficiency in Microsoft Office. At theadministrative level, open source software is beingused for turnkey operations in some telecenters.Agroup of programmers in Latin America known asthe Linux Tigers (los Tigres de Linux) is perfectingthis software and documenting it in Spanish.

It is clear that the Community Learning Centerremains a viable and flexible model, adaptable tospecific community needs and resources. It faceschallenging but not insurmountable operationalissues, from size to governance to range of services.It addresses both the problems of technologicalaccess and equitable access in tandem, and it is agrowth rather than static model.As the number ofcenters has grown, there has been an increase in theorganizations that are operating CLCs, not as theonly focus but as part of a suite of services.Connectivity and ICT access become part of the

basic infrastructure, similar to plumbing andelectricity, that a service organization needs tocompete and function efficiently.

International experiences with the CommunityLearning Center model have not been thoroughlyevaluated, and lessons learned from pilots arebeginning to be disseminated worldwide. It iscritical that sound evaluation criteria be built intoa CLC model at the outset. Valuable data will belost if planners do not establish the qualitative andquantitative information that must be collected,beginning in the planning phase. In 2001, forexample, community technology centers fundedby the United States Department of Educationexpanded the number of U.S. CTCs. By 2002officials in the Department were pressing for betterdata from the centers if they expected to receivefurther support.

To achieve certain measures of success,communities will depend on elements they cannotreadily control. For instance, the utility ofcomputer-assisted applications for education will bedriven by the extent to which they are developed inlocal languages and are compatible with local values,curricula, and needs for lifelong learning, learning toknow, active learning, and cooperative learning.

Success in one domain may come at theexpense of success in another. If one set of userscomes to dominate a Community LearningCenter’s resources, other segments of thecommunity, with other priorities, will continue tobe denied access. Planning must be done at theoutset to avoid such an eventuality and to givecenter staff clear guidelines for allocating resources.

In the end, the outlook is positive for theCommunity Learning Center model because ofdeclining technology costs, the promulgation ofinternational standards, the establishment of long-term technology initiatives by every majorinternational funding organization, increasedtechnological awareness and sophistication withinthe urban centers of developing countries, and thegrowth of a technology-literate cadre ofdevelopment professionals.

The Community Learning Center model focuseson access. Ultimately, it is how community membersuse it. The economic, educational, and social impactof the CLC model will depend on those who notonly plan but also implement the model.

Jensen, Mike and Esterhuysen,Anriette. The Telecentre

Cookbook for Africa: Recipes for Self-sustainability. UNESCO, 2001.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001230/123004e.pdf

Latchem, Colin and Walker, David. Editors. Telecentres:

Case Studies and Key Issues. Commonwealth of Learning, 2001.

http://www.col.org/telecentres (November 2002)

Penuel,William et al. “The Organization of Learning in

Community Technology Centers: Learning with Technology in Six

Communities” SRI International, Center for Technology in Learning,

2001. http://www.sri.com/policy/ctl/html/context6b.html

(November 2002)

Priest,W. Curtis and P. Kenneth Komoski. Creating Learning

Communities: Practical, Universal Networking for Learning in Schools and

Homes. The Center for Information,Technology and Society and The

Educational Products Information Exchange Institute, New York, 1998.

http://www.cosn.org/resources/epie.html. (November 2002)

Proenza, Francisco. “Poverty in Latin America and the

Caribbean,Telecenters and Telecenter Sustainability.”

http://communication.utexas.edu/college.digital_divide_symposium/

papers/proenza.pdf (November 2002)

Proenza, Francisco. “Telecenters for Socioeconomic and

Rural Development in Latin American and the Carbbean” IADB,

2001. http://www.iadb.org/regions/itdev/telecenters/index.htm

(November 2002)

Somos@telecentros. Estado del Arte de los Telecentros de

América Latina y el Caribe http://www.tele-

centros.org/estarte/main.html (November 2002)

The Teleworking Handbook. The Telework,Telecottage and

Telecenter Association Web Site. LU, May 1998.

http://www.tca.org.uk/handbook/index.html (November 2002)

Walter,Timothy. Foundation Resources: Community Networks,

Telecenters and Televillages. Washington: Aspen Institute Rural

Economic Policy Program, 1996. http://aspeninstitute.org/csg/

csg_founders.html (November 2002)

Campbell, Christopher. Community Technology Centers:

Exploring a Tool for Rural Community Development. Amherst:

University of Massachusetts, Center for Rural Massachusetts, 1995.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ruralma/CTC_ToC.html

(November 2002).

European Telework Development Web Site. European

Commission. LU, February 1997. http://www/eto.org.uk

(November 2002)

Fuchs, Richard. “If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade”: A

Guide to the Start-up of the African Multipurpose Community

Telecenter Pilot Projects. Newfoundland: International Development

Research Centre, Fall 1997. http://www.idrc.ca/acacia/outputs/

lemonade/lemon.html (November 2002)

Fuchs, Richard. “Little Engines That Did”: Case Histories from

the Global Telecentre Movement IDRC Study/Acacia Initiative,

Newfoundland, Canada, June 1998.

http://www.idrc.ca/acacia/engine/ (November 2002).

Hudson, Heather. Development and the Globalization of

Cyberspace. The Emerging Internet http://www.aspeninst.org/

publications1/bookstore_communications_emerging.html. Annual

Review of the Institute for Information Studies, a joint program of the

Aspen Institute and Nortel, 1998.

http://www.aspeninst.org/publications1/bookstore_

communications_emerging_cyberspace.html (November 2002).

Hungarian Telecottage Association. TeleHouse, 1997.

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/univ_access/seminar/buda/hun_mct.pdf

describes the Hungarian Telecottage experience and http://www.

http://www.telehaz.hu/ provides information on telecottages in

Hungarian.

Benjamin, Peter and Stavrou,Aki. “Telecenteres 2000 –

The way Forward.” Development Research Africa, November 2002.

http://www.communitysa.org.za/tele2000.htm (November 2002).

Capper, Joanne. “A Review of Telecenter Effectiveness in Latin

America”TechKnowLogia, July-September 2002.

http://www.techknowlogia.org/IssueNumber=17.

Chow, Cllifton, Ellis, Jan and Walker, Geoffrey.

Evaluation Toolkit, CTCNet, 2000 http://ctcnet.org/evalkit.doc.

(November 2002)

Colle, Royal and Roman, Raul. Editors “Telecenters and ICT

for Development: Critical Perspectives and Visions for the Future,”

The Journal of Development Communication, Volume 12, No. 2,

December 2001.

CTCNet Startup Manual. CTCNet, 2000.

http://www.ctcnet.org/toc.htm (November 2002).

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

40

Community

Learning

Centers

Bibliography

1

DIGITAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

41

Community

Learning

Centers

1 As used in this paper, computers usually include a complement

of related educational, communications, multimedia, networking,

publishing, and software technologies2 For more information on technological infrastructure see

article by Rusten in TechKnowlogia, Jan-Mar. 2002.3 DOT-COM Alliance is a partnership with the US Agency for

International Development and its cooperative agreements with

dot-Gov, dot-ORG, and dot-EDU and their partners, with its web

site at www.dot-com-alliance.org4 Schools Online http://www.schoolsonline.org/resources has

published a guide to connectivity options in developing countries. It

helps non-technical people understand some of the choices when

sharing a network like the Internet.5 Best, Michael L., and Maclay, Colin M., “Community Internet

Access in Rural Areas: Solving the Economic Sustainability Puzzle”,

in Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002,

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch08.pdf

Footnotes