Evaluation of the Wired up Communities Programme
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Education Resource Archive Connecting Communities to the Internet: Evaluation of the Wired Up Communities Programme David Devins, Alison Darlow, Andrew Petrie and Tom Burden Policy Research Institute Leeds Metropolitan University Research Report RR389 Research Report No 389 Connecting Communities to the Internet: Evaluation of the Wired Up Communities Programme David Devins, Alison Darlow, Andrew Petrie and Tom Burden Policy Research Institute Leeds Metropolitan University The views expressed in this report are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills. © Queen’s Printer 2003. Published with the permission of DfES on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. ISBN 1 84185 881 1 January 2003 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 THE WIRED UP COMMUNITIES PROGRAMME........................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Overview of Programme.......................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Aims and Objectives................................................................................................ 2 1.2 THE EVALUATION OF THE WUC PROGRAMME ...................................................................... 2 1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................ 3 1.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 3 1.4.1 Review of the programme. ...................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Survey research in the WuC areas ......................................................................... 3 1.4.3 Matched comparisons ............................................................................................. 4 1.4.4 Qualitative data collection in the WuCs................................................................... 4 1.4.5 Reporting and dissemination................................................................................... 4 1.4.6 Evaluation timetable ................................................................................................ 5 1.5 SECTION SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 5 2 CONTEXT: THE ‘DIGITAL DIVIDE’ ....................................................................................... 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 ‘ACCESS’ AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE ..................................................................................... 10 2.3 SECTION SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 13 3 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WUC PROGRAMME ....................... 15 3.1 PROGRAMME DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Aims and Objectives.............................................................................................. 16 3.2 REVIEW OF LOCAL PROJECTS............................................................................................ 18 3.2.1 An overview of the organisation and management of local projects..................... 18 3.2.2 Type of technology ................................................................................................ 21 3.2.3 Developing local content ....................................................................................... 23 3.2.4 Engaging the local community............................................................................... 24 3.2.5 Overcoming financial barriers................................................................................ 25 3.2.6 Training and support for local participants ............................................................ 26 3.3 SECTION SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 27 4 INITIAL OUTCOMES FOR BENEFICIARIES IN THE WUC AREAS .................................. 28 4.1 CHARACTER 4.2 USE OF THE 4.2.1 A prof 4.3 WUC TECHN 4.3.1 Use a 4.4 TRAINING AN 4.5 EMPLOYMEN 4.5.1 Searc 4.6 SOCIAL COH 4.7 SECTION SU Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following for their help, guidance and support at various times during the evaluation project. Vanessa Pittard, Mick Wilson and Jim Bennett from the Department for Education and Skills provided valued guidance and support through the project evaluation steering group and at various other times during the project. Kevin Harris (Community Development Foundation), Martin Dudley (RIS) and Rob Campbell (Halcyon Consultants) also provided helpful and insightful contributions at various stages. In addition, other members of the Policy Research Institute made a major contribution organising the fieldwork (Penny Wymer), processing the primary data (Simon Baldwin, Yvette Fiddler and Rachel Chapman), undertaking literature search and retrieval (Ben Mitchell) and dealing with the administrative requirements of the project (Andrea Davis). Katherine Botterill also provided helpful research support at key times. Our thanks also go to the team from the Bostock Marketing Group who undertook the surveys in the WUCs. A large vote of thanks goes to the members of the local WUC project teams who contributed to the evaluation research. Especially the local project managers who provided information and shared their experiences with the research team. In particular we would like to acknowledge the contribution of Daniel Heery (Alston), John Repen and Terry Lewis-Clarke (Brampton), Richard Stubbs (Newham), Derek Estill (Blackburn), Vin Sumner and Peter Gill (Manchester), Lee Winwood (Framlingham), Annmarie Turner and Mark Jaffrey (Kensington). We would also like to extend our thanks to all the residents who participated in the survey. Their contribution has provided valuable insights into the initial outcomes associated with the programme. David Devins Project Manager, Policy Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University January 2003 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In March 2000, £10 million was allocated from the Capital Modernisation Fund to develop a series of pilot projects for the Wired Up Communities Programme (WuC). WuC sought to achieve the objectives outlined in the Modernising Government White Paper (Cabinet Office 1999) to ensure that those people and communities1 that currently experience social exclusion are not further excluded from engaging with online consumer and government services (DTI 2000). The aim of WuC was to bridge the digital divide by enabling communities to use ICT to access jobs, learning opportunities, government and other services. WuC was implemented in two stages and seven pilot projects were funded reflecting a variety of technological (PC/set-top box) and spatial (urban, rural, coalfield) characteristics. Each project sought to provide ICT to enable home access to the Internet and to develop associated services to help to overcome barriers to use of the Internet. Evaluation of the Wired Up Communities Programme In October 2000 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) commissioned the Policy Research Institute at Leeds Metropolitan University to undertake an evaluation of the WuC Programme. The main aims of the evaluation were to: • assess the impact of the WuC Programme • identify which approach(es) work best. There were several discrete but inter-linked research elements associated with the evaluation methodology. These included a review of relevant documentation, interviews with key stakeholders; baseline and follow up surveys (completed 6-9 months after the initial survey) of between 160-200 individuals in WuC pilot communities and matched comparator areas (MCAs); and further qualitative research to explore the implementation and initial outcomes of the programme. The 'digital divide' ii A review of the literature reveals vigorous debates surrounding the nature and magnitude of the 'digital divide'. Various groups (e.g. white working class males in a coalfield area, ethnic minorities, women, homeless, refugees, single parents) have been identified as being at risk of further exclusion if they do not have 'access' to the Internet. Economic and educational factors (which are themselves closely related) have been identified as key determinants of technology ownership and Internet use. The market mechanism is seen to exacerbate the problem and consequently government action is required to mitigate the impact of 'the divide'. However, 'access' to the Internet is seen to be much more than use of the necessary technology. The concept of access in the home embraces individuals' and households’ resource constraints in terms of financial, motivational and skill capabilities along with other situational factors which impact to varying degrees and at different times. It also includes 'supply side' issues in terms of the lack of relevant content for many disadvantaged