...continued

Challenges: 

• Attraction of young people, especially at-risk youth. The target group for the CIOF program was young people between the ages of 14 and 23. Though some sites surpassed their goal to serve youth, others struggled to meet their target goals, and only 37 percent of the 25,036 people served were in this age group. Word of mouth was the most common and effective form of outreach for all populations served. Given this successful form of outreach, it was imperative that youth participants tell their friends. Despite efforts by some sites to encourage young people to spread the word, they were unable to attract the target population in high numbers. 
• Development of data and evaluation capacity. The program improvement feedback evaluation model required substantial input from individual centers. Often, the staff resources and time required were perceived as burdens rather than helpful to improving programs. While evaluators tried to be responsive to site limitations, there is no substitute for the local investment of the required time and resources. Many sites utilized volunteers where possible, but others were simply not able to fulfill aspects of the evaluation effort. Also, the Initiative evaluation relied heavily on a technology-based client tracking system maintained by the site with technical assistance provided by the Initiative evaluators. Technical problems in implementing the tracking system often frustrated local sites. Two actions that would have aided evaluation implementation were: allocation of sufficient resources to support site-level participation and more assistance on how to utilize the data for program or other activity. 
• Curriculum needs. The CIOF model was designed with the assumption that existing technology training curricula would be sufficient for low-income residents. This turned out not to be the case for most centers. CIOF center users generally had different starting points than the general population. Many had never used a computer or mouse, did not speak English or were limited English speakers, had low education levels and low literacy. As a result, most sites had to create much of their own curriculum. This turned out to be a major task for all sites affecting program development and evaluation. 
• Staff turnover. Finding and retaining qualified program staff was a challenge for most CIOF centers. Staff turnover, especially in lead positions, often disrupted development of programs, curriculum and evaluation. Of the 11 CIOF centers, 10 experienced change at the executive director or project director level. All organizations experienced change at the instructor level. Technical assistance providers and evaluators were often required to orient new staff. Technical assistance providers developed an orientation workshop for new staff and offered advice to sites about staffing levels and job descriptions in order to address some of the recurring turnover issues.
• Corporate sponsorship development. Though no initial target was set at the start of the Work and Health Initiative, the corporate sponsorship component was expected to add a substantial number of corporate cofunders to the CIOF program. Contrary to initial assumptions, corporate funders were less willing to provide financial support, as most of their contributions were in the form of hardware and software. In addition, it took persistence by the Program Coordination Team to penetrate the corporate-giving structures. Corporate sponsorship development requires a lot of time, relationship-building, follow-through and some savvy to work with corporate staff. Though there were a few successful local efforts, on the whole it was difficult for individual sites to build their capacity to solicit corporations.

Lessons Learned:

• Heightened visibility of the digital divide benefited CIOF. The rise in use of information technology and a seminal report by the federal government on technology access increased visibility of digital divide issues and helped position CIOF centers as local technology resources and leaders. 
• The digital divide is not just a technical issue. The ability to provide training that assists people to access good jobs is influenced by important contextual and systemic factors facing the target population. Individuals who do not have access to digital technology often face a number of additional challenges including low levels of literacy and low socio-economic status. Community technology centers need to be prepared to work collaboratively with a host of other organizations to address preexisting needs.
• Operating a community technology center is expensive. Maintaining the technology infrastructure of a community technology center requires qualified staff and constant upgrading and maintenance of hardware and software. These costs are general operating costs that are difficult to find funding for but essential for the success of a center. 
• Young people are attracted to programs designed specifically for youth. There are some lessons to share from sites about how to attract and retain youth in training programs. The development of curriculum and content must be innovative and creative to keep youth involved. Organizations that were most successful at reaching the target population have staff who relate well to young people (often, but not always, these are young adults), offer additional programming and services that are youth-centered and more social in nature (such as mentoring programs, tutoring or small group projects) and offer a welcoming environment for youth. Organizations that were able to establish effective relationships with youth-serving organizations were able to provide training without actually having to expend a substantial amount of resources to create an in-house youth program.
• CIOF employment linkage goals were not realistic. The CIOF model sought not only to create access to technology training but also to create a link to employment in order to show a more direct training benefit. This goal was never clearly developed in the model, which caused some confusion among sites about how to implement it. The model also allowed for flexibility and local creativity. The net effect is that over time, emphasis was placed on developing good quality technology training programs rather than employment placement for participants.
• Program success is linked to organizational strength and leadership. Strong and stable organizational leadership is necessary for program success. The organizations that experienced the most staff turnover at executive levels also had the weaker programs. These organizations often experienced additional program staff turnover and financial constraints that limited their ability to focus on CIOF program objectives. It should be noted that the stronger organizations also dealt better with staff turnover, causing minimal impact on programs.