A Framework for Action
ABOUT THE PARTNERS

The Institute of Museum and Library 

Services is the primary source of federal 

support for the nation’s 123,000 libraries and 

17,500 museums. The Institute’s mission is to 

create strong libraries and museums that 

connect people to information and ideas. The 

Institute works at the national level and in 

coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and 

support professional development. To learn 

more about the Institute, please visit 

www.imls.gov.

University of Washington

The Technology & Social Change Group

(TASCHA) at the University of Washington 

Information School explores the design, use, 

and effects of information and communication technologies in communities facing social 

and economic challenges. With experience in 

50 countries, TASCHA brings together a 

multidisciplinary network of social scientists, 

engineers, and development practitioners to 

conduct research, advance knowledge, create 

public resources, and improve policy and 

program design. Our purpose? To spark 

innovation and opportunities for those who 

need it most.

ICMA, the International City/County 

Management Association, advances 

professional local government worldwide. 

Our mission is to create excellence in local 

governance by developing and advancing 

professional management to create 

sustainable communities that improve lives 

worldwide. ICMA provides member support; 

publications; data and information; peer and 

results-oriented assistance; and training and 

professional development to nearly 9,000 city, 

town, and county experts and other individuals and organizations throughout the world.

The management decisions made by ICMA’s 

members affect millions of individuals living in 

thousands of communities, from small villages 

and towns to large metropolitan areas.

CONTACT

Institute of Museum and Library Services

1800 M Street NW, 9th Floor

Washington, DC 20036

202-653-IMLS (4657)

www.imls.gov

AUTHORS

From University of Washington: Samantha 

Becker, Chris Coward, Mike Crandall, and 

Rebecca Sears; from ICMA: Ron Carlee and 

Kira Hasbargen; and from IMLS: Mary Alice 

Ball.

COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER

This report is in the public domain and may 

be used and reprinted without permission; 

citation of the source is, however, appreciated. 

The views, opinions, and findings expressed 

by the authors of this document do not 

necessarily state or reflect those of the 

Institute of Museum and Library Services.

ABSTRACT

Digital inclusion is the ability of individuals 

and groups to access and use information and 

communication technologies. Not all members of a community benefit equally, and 

some communities have been left out altogether. Building Digital Communities: A 

framework for action is a resource for fostering 

digital inclusion throughout the United States 

so that everyone can take advantage of digital 

technologies. The Framework is structured 

around a vision for the future, principles that 

define digital inclusion, goals to make digital 

inclusion a reality, and sample strategies for 

achieving the goals. 

KEYWORDS

IMLS, digital inclusion, public libraries, 

community-based organizations, National 

Broadband Plan, digital access, accessibility, 

broadband access, ICT training and support, 

equity, consumer education, digital literacy, 

online job search, online access

140-CHARACTER SUMMARY

Building Digital Communities provides a 

resource for digital inclusion planning in US, 

with a vision, principles, goals, and strategies

RECOMMENDED CITATION

Institute of Museum and Library Services, 

University of Washington, International City/ 

County Management Association. (2012 

January). Building Digital Communities: A 

framework for action. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Preface ...................................................................................................................... 7

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................9

1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 1

What is digital inclusion, and why does it matter?...................................................... 1

A framework for community-wide planning...............................................................2

Background and process............................................................................................ 3

2. Understanding the Framework .............................................................................. 7

Vision: What is a digital community? .........................................................................9

Principles: Statements of intention............................................................................9

Goals: How to achieve a digital community ............................................................. 11

Strategies: How the goals can be achieved .............................................................. 11

3. The vision: What is a digital community? ............................................................. 14

4. Access principles.................................................................................................. 15

Principle 1: Availability............................................................................................. 15

Principle 2: Affordability ...........................................................................................17

Principle 3: Design for inclusion............................................................................... 18

Principle 4: Public access ......................................................................................... 20

5. Adoption principles .............................................................................................. 23

Principle 5: Relevance.............................................................................................. 23

Principle 6: Digital literacy ....................................................................................... 25

Principle 7: Consumer safety....................................................................................26
6. Application principles...........................................................................................29

Principle 8: Economic and workforce development..................................................29

Principle 9: Education .............................................................................................. 31

Principle 10: Health care .......................................................................................... 33

Principle 11: Public safety and emergency services .................................................. 34

Principle 12: Civic engagement.................................................................................37

Principle 13: Social connections ............................................................................... 38

8. Getting started on digital inclusion ...................................................................... 41

1. Convene stakeholders .......................................................................................... 41

2. Develop a shared community understanding of digital inclusion .......................... 43

3. Create a community action plan........................................................................... 43

4. Implement the plan.............................................................................................. 43

5. Evaluate and revise the plan.................................................................................44

Appendix 1. Partner information.............................................................................. 45

Institute of Museum and Library Services ................................................................ 45

University of Washington ........................................................................................ 45

International City/County Management Association................................................ 45

Appendix 2. Partner team members ........................................................................ 47

Digital Inclusion Working Group .............................................................................. 47

Digital Inclusion Network.........................................................................................48

Appendix 3. Summary of research on digital inclusion ............................................. 52
Assessment models ................................................................................................. 53

Indicator systems .................................................................................................... 53

Local and international policy initiatives .................................................................. 54

Reasons for non-adoption ....................................................................................... 55

Conclusion............................................................................................................... 57

Appendix 4. Overview of community and leadership forums ................................... 58

Community Forums ................................................................................................. 59

Leadership Forums .................................................................................................. 61

Appendix 5. Overall Analysis of the Community Forums ..........................................64

Summary of overall analysis of the community forums............................................64

Surveys & principle-specific findings ........................................................................64

Discussion themes................................................................................................... 67

Appendix 6. Overall analysis of the Leadership Forums ........................................... 76

Implementation....................................................................................................... 76

Appendix 7. Online survey ....................................................................................... 79

Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 79

Analysis of open-ended comments.......................................................................... 81

References ..............................................................................................................84

Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 85

Assessment models ................................................................................................. 85

Indicator systems ....................................................................................................86
Local and international policy initiatives on digital inclusion ...................................101

Reasons for non-adoption ..................................................................................... 105
Preface

As access to broadband becomes increasingly important to full participation in 

society, there is an urgent call for communities to develop technology plans 

that address the needs of all their residents. Nearly 100 million people in the 

U.S. do not have access to high speed broadband. Libraries, businesses, 

hospitals, schools, cultural institutions, community technology centers and local 

governments have important roles to play and face difficult decisions about 

how to create and sustain access to broadband technologies and digital 

content.

In early 2009, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission to 

develop a National Broadband Plan to ensure that every American has "access 

to broadband capability." The National Broadband Plan, released in 2010, noted 

the significant individual and societal costs of "digital exclusion" and warned 

that absent action, these costs would grow.

Through its long history of supporting the evolving role of libraries as hubs for 

community broadband access, the Institute of Museum and Library Services is 

well positioned to provide leadership in this area. Working together with the 

University of Washington Information School and the International City/County 

Management Association we have produced Building Digital Communities: A 

Framework for Action. The Framework encourages engagement across all 

sectors of the community so that "all people, businesses, and institutions have 

access to digital content and technologies that enable them to create and 

support healthy, prosperous, and cohesive 21st century communities."

The Framework is an important step toward providing tools that can help 

communities compete in a global economy and improve civic life. It benefited 

from the input of more than one hundred organizations and individuals with 

deep knowledge about public access to technology and the diverse information 

needs of communities. Community and leadership forums were held around 

the country and a survey was conducted to solicit feedback on the proposed 

framework.
Libraries and other community-based organizations play especially important 

roles in meeting the needs of hard to reach residents and ensuring opportunity 

for all. Libraries are recognized community anchors with the capacity to 

convene public officials, businesses, schools, hospitals, public safety and 

cultural institutions so they can work together to fully and effectively realize the

value of a digital community.

This report articulates the vision, principles, goals and strategies to help 

communities realize the benefits that digital technologies offer in economic and 

workforce development, education, health care, public safety and emergency 

services, civic engagement, and social connections. The Framework also makes 

recommendations about how to get started in developing and implementing an 

action plan for a strong digital community.

We encourage community leaders to use this Framework as a tool to support

the development and growth of digitally-connected communities across the 

nation.

Susan H. Hildreth

Director

Institute of Museum and Library Services
Acknowledgments

IMLS, UW, and ICMA are grateful to all those who contributed to the 

development of the Final Report. We wish to extend deep thanks to those who 

volunteered their time and effort to reviewing and commenting on drafts of the 

proposed Framework, including: members of the Digital Inclusion Working 

Group and Digital Inclusion Network, participants of the three forums, and 

respondents of the online survey. Their comments were invaluable. 

The forums would not have been possible without the efforts of the state 

libraries of California, Oklahoma, and Maine, as well as the generous support of 

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The leaders and key personnel of the 

public libraries in Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, and Bangor, were instrumental 

to the success of the events. Knowing that there were many members of each 

host team, we would like to recognize Stacey Aldrich, Martin Gomez, and Kris 

Morita for the Los Angeles forums; Susan McVey, Donna Morris, Candace 

McDaniel, and William Young for Oklahoma City; and Linda Lord, Cheryl 

Ramsey, and Barbara McDade for Bangor. 

The University of Washington owes a debt of gratitude to the student research 

assistants who contributed to the development of the Final Report –Keneka 

Edwards, Elly Krumweide, and Rinna Rem – as well as the volunteer community 

forum moderators – Michelle Fellows, Cortney Leach, Jordan Eschler, Nandana 

Baruah, Katie O’Leary, and Jenny Rathmel. In addition, we are grateful to 

Professor Karen Fisher’s reviews and input on early drafts of the Framework.

The following IMLS staff members contributed to this project: Susan Hildreth, 

Mary Chute, Mamie Bittner, and Carlos Manjarrez.

Finally, we also owe thanks to the peer federal agencies of IMLS for their 

contributions. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 1 —

1. Introduction

What is digital inclusion, and why does it matter?

Digital Inclusion is the ability of individuals and groups to access and use 

information and communication technologies. Digital inclusion encompasses not 

only access to the Internet but also the availability of hardware and software; 

relevant content and services; and training for the digital literacy skills required for 

effective use of information and communication technologies.1

What does digital inclusion mean for people in a community?

The cost of digital 

exclusion is great. Without access, full participation in nearly every aspect of 

American society — from economic success and educational achievement, to 

positive health outcomes and civic engagement — is compromised.

2

• All members understand the benefits of advanced information and 

communication technologies.

Simply, it means 

that:

• All members have equitable and affordable access to high-speed Internetconnected devices and online content. 

• All members can take advantage of the educational, economic, and social 

opportunities available through these technologies.

The diffusion of the Internet and other information and communication 

technologies has enabled communities around the United States to reap the 

rewards of greater connectivity (FCC, 2010). Individuals and organizations from all 

sectors — including the general public — have been able to expand and enrich 

their services through these new technologies. Not all members of a community 

benefit equally, and some communities have been left out altogether. These 

 

1

Definition based on Communities Connect Network, available at 

http://seattle.gov/tech/overview/What_is_Digital_Inclusion.pdf.

2 The term “community” is understood here in its broadest sense. A community can be a geographic 

entity, but it can also reflect other characteristics, such as occupation, interest, or identity.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 2 —

excluded individuals and communities risk being deprived of basic needs such as 

education, employment, commerce, and social interaction that increasingly occur 

through the Internet and other advanced communication technologies. 

The obstacles to adoption of communications technologies are varied, as 

demonstrated in the Summary of Research on Digital Inclusion (Appendix 3). The 

barriers most commonly cited were individual attitudes to the technology and the 

cost of access, as well as a perceived lack of relevant content. Several studies 

pointed to the need for better and wider communication regarding the availability 

of resources as well as the potential benefits of digital participation. 

A framework for community-wide planning

Communities across the country are recognizing the pressing need to coordinate, 

plan for, and implement digital inclusion efforts to ensure that every resident is 

able to benefit in our increasingly digital society. These efforts include extending 

broadband infrastructure to rural and other underserved areas, digital literacy 

training to help people adopt digital technologies and educate people about 

online safety, and targeted programs to ensure everyone can complete an online 

job application, take a distance learning class, or manage her healthcare. 

The Framework is a resource for community-wide planning to help forwardlooking communities achieve digital inclusion for all of their residents. It sets forth 

a vision of what a modern 21st community looks like when digital inclusion is a 

priority, presents a set of principles that need to be adopted in order to achieve 

that vision, and provides specific goals that can serve as benchmarks for making 

progress against each of the principle areas. The Framework also includes 

strategies that communities have implemented around the country to serve as 

examples for others, acknowledging that every community is unique and will 

identify its own direction. 

The digital inclusion framework is akin to a transportation planning tool. In 

transportation planning, communities need to move people and goods in order to 

prosper and grow. A comprehensive transportation plan includes not just the 

roads, but also the sidewalks, bike lanes, public transportation, traffic control, and 

enforcement. A transportation plan uses community-established goals and 

incentives to prioritize the implementation of improvements, and to respond to 

the changing needs of the community. Depending on the specific situation of the 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 3 —

community (history, geography, financial base, etc.), these priorities are different, 

but the basic framework behind all of the plans is substantively similar. 

So too is it with digital inclusion. Digital inclusion is a requisite for building healthy 

and prosperous communities across all important sectors—economic and 

workforce development, education, health care, public safety and emergency 

services, civic engagement, and social connections. While each community will 

have different priorities, the fundamental needs are the same:

• for high-speed infrastructure to carry Internet traffic and connect households 

to businesses and community institutions; 

• to help people learn to navigate technology and provide a safe environment 

for doing so;

• to maintain public options for those who are unable, can’t afford, need 

temporary access, or for whom it doesn’t make sense to maintain private 

access;

• to remove barriers to access for people with disabilities or facing other 

obstacles to access, and; 

• to address the special needs and requirements of key sectors that drive the 

local economy.

A community must engage all sectors to achieve digital inclusion—this is not just a 

product of government action, it needs to involve individuals, local and tribal 

governing bodies, business, the nonprofit community, special interest groups, and 

other stakeholders. Public libraries, recognizing the role they have played in 

bridging the digital divide, are uniquely positioned to convene this planning 

process and begin this essential work, but the initiative can come from anywhere. 

What is important is that communities raise digital inclusion as a priority and take 

steps to achieve it. The Framework is a planning resource to help communities in 

this effort.

Background and process

In response to the problem of digital exclusion and unequal access, Congress 

directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop a plan to 

ensure that every American has “access to broadband capability.” Issued March 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 4 —

2010, the National Broadband Plan recognized the pivotal roles that libraries and 

community-based organizations play in providing digital training and support, as 

well as access to high-speed Internet and related community information services, 

and called on the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to 

...develop guidelines for public access technology based on populations 

served and organization size.

These guidelines would help libraries and community-based 

organizations assess their needs for public access workstations, portable 

devices, and bandwidth. IMLS should work with these organizations to 

develop guidelines and review them annually to reflect changing 

technology and practices. (FCC, 2010, Recommendation 9.3.) 

To work toward this recommendation, IMLS, working in cooperation with the 

University of Washington (UW) and its partner the International City/County 

Management Association (ICMA) (together referred to as the “cooperators”)

developed a framework (“Framework”), presented in this report, to identify the 

overarching principles as well as the elements or key characteristics of 

organizations and communities that foster digital inclusion.

The first step in developing the Framework was to create a draft, or proposed 

Framework. The preliminary draft of the Framework was the product of an 

extensive literature review that sought out existing frameworks and digital 

inclusion efforts implemented in communities across the nation and 

internationally. Additionally, examples of successful frameworks and indicator 

efforts were examined to get a sense of how the digital framework should be 

structured and what elements were necessary to improve its likelihood of 

adoption. 

To refine the Framework and ensure its relevance, over one hundred 

representatives from libraries, community-based organizations, business, local 

government, and non-governmental organizations were engaged in the 

development of the proposed Framework. Their views were sought to help ensure 

that the Framework will be relevant and useful to professionals in the field of 

digital inclusion, as well as to increase the credibility of the Framework with 

communities that will eventually implement it.

The representatives were assembled into two groups. A 16-person Digital 

Inclusion Working Group (the “Working Group”) was selected to assist with the 

drafting process. The members of this group included a broad range of expertise 

and represented a variety of organization types, populations, geographies, and 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 5 —

technical areas. The Working Group met for two days in January 2011 to review a 

draft Framework, and also engaged in online discussions and interactive web 

conferences throughout the Framework development process.

A wider group of about 80 reviewers, known as the Digital Inclusion Network, was 

formed at the same time, selected by the cooperators with Working Group input. 

This group represented organizations that are active in implementing digital 

inclusion policies and services, such as library systems, technology consultants, 

and educational institutions (see Appendix 2 for a complete list of Working Group 

and Network participants). The Network provided their comments on draft 

versions of the Framework through an online social network and also through web 

conferences. 

With the drafting process complete in June 2011, the cooperators prepared to 

take the proposed Framework to different communities around the country to 

explore how it could be improved and used by those communities.

Three forums were held in September and October of 2011. The objectives of the 

forums were to gather meaningful feedback that would support the finalization of 

the Framework as well as development of implementation and communication 

plans. IMLS selected three states in which to hold forums – California, Oklahoma, 

and Maine. The specific cities – Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, and Bangor – were 

selected with State Library input to provide:

• A mix of rural and urban environments within driving distance of the forum 

locations

• Income and demographic diversity

• Digital adoption diversity, including populations of non-adopters

• Examples of existing innovative digital inclusion initiatives 

Each location hosted two events: a community forum and a leadership forum. The 

community forum captured information from participants about the nature of 

digital inclusion in each of the communities, as well as soliciting feedback on the 

proposed Framework. The leadership forum elicited feedback from community 

leaders on the Framework as well as on implementation opportunities.

In addition to the forums, IMLS gathered feedback from a wider audience through 

an online survey. The survey contained questions about the early versions of 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 6 —

Building Digital Communities materials, as well as attitudinal questions about 

whether the Framework will support digital inclusion activities. 

The resulting final version of the Framework found in this report incorporates

insights from the forums and the online survey.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 7 —

2. Understanding the Framework

Building Digital Communities provides a resource to help communities chart a 

course toward improving digital inclusiveness — toward expanding the economic 

and social opportunities provided by digital technology to all its members. The 

Framework consists of four components:

1. Vision for the future

2. Principles that define digital inclusion

3. Goals to make digital inclusion a reality

4. Strategies for achieving the goals

Figure 1 illustrates the interrelationship of these four components. The 

foundational vision informs the other three components. The principles yield 

specific goals. Goals, in turn, shape real-world strategies for implementing the 

Framework. The sample strategies serve as illustrations of the kinds of initiatives 

that communities may choose to implement in order to achieve the vision of a 

digital community. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 8 —

Figure 1. Framework structure 

Four main assumptions informed the vision, principles, goals, and strategies of 

the Framework: 

1. Advanced digital technology enables economic and social well-being. 

2. Digital inclusiveness is a worthwhile public policy goal for which public and 

private resources should be mobilized.

3. Community stakeholders are actively engaged in efforts to build digital 

inclusiveness.

4. The creation of a digital community requires the involvement of all sectors of 

the community, any one of which can provide leadership and be a catalyst for 

action. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 9 —

Vision: What is a digital community? 

What does a digital community mean for its members? The Framework 

incorporates vision statements that are forward looking and optimistic about 

future opportunities enabled by technology. They articulate an overarching digital 

identity of a community from several perspectives:

• How residents experience a digital community

• How economic growth may be facilitated by technology access

• How government and civic society can be enhanced by connectivity

• How underserved populations might be afforded opportunities through 

technology

Principles: Statements of intention

Thirteen principles comprise the backbone of the Framework. Principles are 

statements of intention that state the rationale for focusing efforts in the areas 

most important for ensuring digital community now, for planning for the future, 

and for identifying areas where special effort will be required. The principle 

statements

• Are fundamental propositions that support specific goals

• Can be considered “mission statements” that further embody the vision 

statements; and

• Classify aspects of the vision statements into actionable areas.

The thirteen principles are divided into access principles, adoption principles, and 

application principles. Access principles address the infrastructure a community 

needs to have in place in order to provide opportunities to benefit from digital life. 

Adoption principles look to overcome individual barriers that make use of 

broadband technology less likely, even when access is available. Finally, the 

application principles look at specific purpose areas where the thoughtful 

deployment of broadband technologies can enhance the economic success of 

communities and the lives of their residents.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 10 —

It is important to note that the ordering of the principles within each grouping is 

not intended to dictate an overall strategic prioritization; priorities will be 

determined by individual communities through their self-assessment of 

community needs. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the three types of 

principles. 

Figure 2. Access, adoption, and application principles of digital inclusion
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 11 —

Access principles are:

1. Availability

2. Affordability

3. Design for inclusion

4. Public access

Adoption principles are:

1. Relevance

2. Digital literacy

3. Consumer safety

Application principles are:

1. Economic and workforce development

2. Education 

3. Health care

4. Public safety and emergency services

5. Civic engagement 

6. Social connections

Goals: How to achieve a digital community

Each of the thirteen principles is associated with a series of goals. The goals 

identified in the Framework articulate the core commitments needed to realize 

the stated principles and to achieve the vision of a digital community. The goals

• Are tools to help the community focus on achieving the vision

• Point to strategies that enable individuals and organizations to take steps 

that contribute to achieving the vision statements; and

• Provide a foundation for future benchmarking and evaluation.

Strategies: How the goals can be achieved

Specific strategies and implementation activities will vary from one community to 

another depending on local circumstances and priorities. The creation of a digital 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 12 —

community requires the involvement of all sectors of the community — and any of 

them can provide leadership and function as a catalyst for action.

Strategies need to involve four main levels of activity:

A. Local government, including tribal government, plays a critical role in all 

aspects of community planning and development. It has a core responsibility 

to develop a digital inclusion plan and provide incentives and resources for its 

implementation as part of its overall strategy to an economically and socially 

sustainable community.

B. Libraries, community-based organizations, and other community anchor 

institutions3

C. Businesses contribute to the building of the broadband infrastructure, as well 

as developing many of the services enabled through the infrastructure. They 

both utilize broadband services and are dependent on the readiness of 

communities to take advantage of the opportunities broadband enables. As 

part of their business, they may also provide access to the Internet in coffee 

shops, restaurants, hotels, and other public locations. They play an essential 

role in providing opportunities for digital inclusion.

are the primary places where people can be assured access to 

digital technologies, along with training and support. They are safe and 

trusted institutions, available in most communities.

D. Individuals are at the core of a democratic society. They have the ability to 

influence community policies, values, and programs as they express 

themselves in the political process and can advocate for digital inclusion. 

Digital inclusion, in turn, has the potential to improve individuals’ personal, 

social, and economic well-being and enable them to participate more fully in 

their communities.

In addition, all stakeholders will need to focus on the broader level of strategic 

activity: 

 

3

“Anchor” institutions are community institutions that serve as a resource for broad segments of the 

population: schools, libraries, health care providers, public safety entities, community colleges and 

other institutions of higher education, and other support organizations.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 13 —

E. Influencing policy. An important dimension of working toward full digital 

inclusion is advocacy, which requires attention by individual, organizational, 

and business “champions” at the local, regional, or national level. 

The following sections set out the Framework in greater detail. Section 3 briefly 

discusses the Vision of a digital community. Sections 4-6 outline the access, 

adoption, and application principles, each with their related goals and sample 

strategies. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 14 —

3. The vision: What is a digital 

community?

The overarching vision that motivates this Framework is simple but ambitious:

• All people, businesses, and institutions will have access to digital technologies 

and content that enable them to create and support healthy, prosperous, and 

cohesive 21st century communities. 

• Each community will benefit from harnessing the potential of technology to 

address its most pressing needs and those of its members. 

By choosing to implement the Framework, communities demonstrate 

commitment to these specific elements of the overall vision: 

• Internet access is high speed, affordable, physically accessible, and capable of 

supporting current demand and future growth.

• Internet access is available to all residents, visitors, businesses, government 

agencies, libraries, and other community-based organizations (CBOs). 

• Public access is available for those who, under normal circumstances or in an 

emergency, have little or no communication technology at home, or who 

need to supplement their home connectivity.

• Broader opportunities for economic development are available through full 

use of information and communication technologies. 

• Technology is used to foster social connections, educational and employment 

opportunities, access to health care, civic participation, and innovation, as 

well as to drive efficient and effective government services. 

• Respectful support is provided for populations that face challenges to 

participating fully in digital life because of disabilities; physical or cognitive 

differences; age-related differences in capabilities; language, literacy, and 

cultural barriers; or other obstacles to using technology. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 15 —

4. Access principles

The Access principles include four areas that are the requisite foundation for 

participation in digital life. Once addressed, they provide the opportunity to 

benefit from digital inclusion for every individual and community. 

Principle 1: Availability

A reliable communications infrastructure is the raw material for innovation, 

growth, and competitive engagement in today’s information-based world. Local 

and tribal governing bodies, the private sector, and community-based 

organizations that are bound to one another by geographic proximity and a 

shared infrastructure need to cooperate to effectively build and maintain 

appropriate and cost-effective broadband service. Recognizing that greater 

bandwidth speeds and coverage will be required in the future, these goals are 

intended to address the immediate needs for high-speed access while preparing 

for future growth.

Goals 

• Access to high speed Internet is available in every household that meets or 

exceeds the service goals and milestones set by the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC). 

• Tribal lands and Native communities have affordable access to 

communication services and broadband technology. 

• Sufficient bandwidth is available for multi-user environments, such as 

educational institutions, public libraries, medical facilities, and other 

organizations, to support current needs and future network demand. 

• Comprehensive standards for broadband readiness in new buildings, 

renovations, and anchor institutions are adopted by appropriate governing 

bodies. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 16 —

• The deployment of infrastructure is guided by right-of-way policies that 

remove barriers to market entry and system upgrades while limiting 

disruptions and ensuring other community interests. 

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Test actual upload/download speeds against advertised speeds at: 

http://www.broadband.gov/qualitytest/. 

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Ensure that community anchor institutions have access to cooperative highcapacity networks, such as Internet2.

• Develop partnerships with other organizations to share networks and 

leverage infrastructure investments. 

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Support competitive policies to expand markets and encourage innovative 

options for providing broadband to underserved areas. 

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Coordinate efforts and collaborate with other regions to reduce the costs of 

developing broadband infrastructure.

• Inventory existing network infrastructure, including service quality, costs, and 

location of community anchor institutions and validate the accuracy of 

information in the National Broadband Map (http://broadbandmap.gov/).

• Provide strategic incentives to stimulate market competition and private 

investment in broadband networks in underserved or isolated areas.

• Ensure that local and tribal government agreements with network providers 

are negotiated to obtain the highest possible download and upload speeds.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 17 —

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Support policies and programs to evaluate the use of wireless spectrum, open 

additional spectrum, and provide increased bandwidth for use by public 

institutions. 

• Promote standards for measuring upload/download speeds among local 

Internet Service Providers.

Principle 2: Affordability

Access to the Internet needs to be affordable for communities and their members 

to benefit from the expanded opportunities of digital life. Public and private 

entities need to partner together to lower the cost of digital access in general and 

to provide assistance to those who cannot bear the full cost of home access. 

Additionally, community members need to be able to understand their options in 

order to take advantage of competition in the broadband marketplace. These 

goals are aimed at developing pricing structures and support systems to enable 

businesses, institutions, and households to afford access to broadband and digital 

technologies. 

Goals 

• Internet Service Providers (ISP) provide uniform pricing information to enable 

consumers to easily compare plans available in the community.

• Programs that subsidize monthly Internet subscription costs are available to 

low-income households. 

• Assistance with hardware, software, and peripheral equipment purchase and 

maintenance are available to low-income households.

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Donate used technology equipment to nonprofit groups that provide 

equipment to low-income households and community organizations. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 18 —

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Raise public awareness about available Internet subsidies and assistance for 

purchasing computer equipment. 

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Donate used computer equipment to nonprofit groups that provide hardware 

to low-income households and community organizations. 

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Maintain local comparisons of Internet service provider prices and options. 

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Promote standards for comparing prices of service bundles among local 

Internet Service Providers.

Principle 3: Design for inclusion

People with disabilities, physical or cognitive differences, and differences in agerelated capabilities, language, literacy or culture may face challenges using 

technology and participating in digital life. As a result, they may be denied access 

to opportunities that could enhance well-being and promote independence. 

Failure to address the needs of people facing barriers negatively impacts not just 

those individuals but also the broader community, which will be denied their 

contributions to its civic, social, and economic health. The following goals reflect a 

commitment to erasing the boundaries between differences and reducing the 

obstacles to utilizing technology through principles of effective design.

Goals 

• Assistance for ensuring access for people with disabilities and complying, at a 

minimum, with the letter, intent, and spirit of accessibility laws and 

regulations is provided to public and private organizations. 

• People with disabilities, local and tribal governing bodies, businesses, and 

community organizations are provided with access to assistive devices and 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 19 —

training about the range of technology and design solutions available to 

accommodate physical or cognitive differences. 

• The Seven Principles of Universal Design are embedded into the design of 

technology-based services for local and tribal governing bodies, businesses, 

and community organizations. (http://www.ncsu.edu/project/designprojects/udi/center-for-universal-design/the-principles-of-universal-design/) 

• Scripting, layout, and navigation of technology based-services are designed, 

localized, and optimized for multilingual and multicultural use. 

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Clearly express personal accessibility needs and preferred accommodations 

to technology providers, and advocate for these accommodations on behalf 

of others.

• Participate in volunteer programs that provide one-to-one assistance using 

technology to people with disabilities. 

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Engage in partnerships with community-based organizations that serve 

people with disabilities to better design services and accommodations. 

• Maintain a central resource library of assistive technologies and best practices 

for accommodating people with disabilities. 

• Hold workshops to educate businesses and community organizations about 

best practices in universal design. 

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Align existing online presence with national standards for accessibility and 

language; move towards universal design for future projects. 

• Invest in the development of assistive technology — with the participation of 

the disabilities community — to reduce cost, improve design, and enable new 

applications.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 20 —

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Commit to adopting nationally recognized standards for technology 

accessibility and language; direct future projects toward universal design 

principles. 

• Assess and manage information technology projects for government and 

essential services online in a manner that includes people with disabilities and 

other barriers in all phases of new technology development and deployment.

• Provide education, training, and incentives to businesses and organizations 

for creating accessible technology and complying with accessibility 

standards.

• Utilize public information campaigns to make the community more fully 

aware of the impact of technology design on people with disabilities and 

language or cultural differences. 

INFLUENCING POLICY 

• Support enforcement of existing accessibility laws as they apply to the digital 

environment.

• Support national efforts to promote the adoption and use of universal design 

standards for accessibility.

Principle 4: Public access

Public access to technology is necessary for community members who have little 

or no communication technology available in the home, need assistance to 

effectively use technology, or to supplement connectivity at home or in schools. 

Others need public access technology to assist during emergencies. Visitors need 

public access to be able to keep connected to family and work while away from 

home. Implementing the following goals will ensure that uninterrupted 

technology and connectivity are available through free public access. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 21 —

Goals 

• The community has sufficient, convenient free access to computers, Internet, 

wireless networks, and other communication technologies to support the 

needs of residents, workers, and visitors. 

• Public access technology is located in safe facilities, with adequate levels of 

privacy, security, and accessibility for people with disabilities. 

• Information about the availability and location of public access technology is 

widely disseminated.

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Advocate for sufficient funding for libraries and other community-based 

organizations to support public access in the community. 

• Share stories with policy makers about how public access technology benefits 

the community. 

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Develop partnerships between libraries and community-based organizations 

to provide public access to technology and technology support in high-need 

locations. 

• Support development of community technology centers for special 

population groups and low-income housing complexes. 

• Provide access to electronic information about community resources and 

services at strategic locations such as community-based organizations 

offering social service assistance. 

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Develop partnerships and strategic alliances with libraries and other 

community-based organizations to provide public access equipment, trainers, 

and other resources.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 22 —

• Inform users of business-supported wireless networks on best practices for 

protecting private information on public networks.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Evaluate the public access needs of the community, develop a public access 

plan, and provide adequate funding and support for public access in libraries 

and other community institutions. 

• Maintain a directory of public access providers and promote its availability.

• Support the development of wireless hotspots (including public-private 

partnerships) for residents and non-residents, especially in public spaces such 

as town centers, parks, and recreation centers.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Support efforts to develop guidelines for determining the levels and types of 

public access necessary to support a community’s needs. 

• Support programs that provide resources for local public access, including Erate and other funding programs. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 23 —

5. Adoption principles

The Adoption category includes those principles that are most likely to address 

individual barriers to adoption. When individuals are uninformed about digital 

options and opportunities (relevance), don’t know how to use digital technologies 

(digital literacy), or are afraid of using digital technologies (consumer safety), they 

are less likely to adopt them.

Principle 5: Relevance 

Beyond having access to technologies, individuals, businesses, and institutions 

need to understand the relevance and benefits of using technology to achieve 

educational, economic, and social goals. Awareness of its potential benefits 

creates the motivation to master technology skills and learn more about 

effectively using broadband. These goals aim to help communities raise 

awareness of the value of technology and generate interest in adopting its use. 

Goals 

• Community institutions engage in outreach activities to help raise awareness 

about the benefits of using broadband and other digital technologies among 

non-adopters.

• Individuals are provided with help to make informed choices about Internetbased services, products, and information.

• Specially designed awareness activities and targeted content are developed 

to engage older adults in using technology.

• Local and tribal governing bodies, businesses, and community organizations 

support the creation of multilingual and multicultural content and promote 

use of digital technologies to diverse users.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 24 —

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Ask about digital technologies in the government, institutions, and 

businesses with which one interacts.

• Attend public sessions sponsored by organizations such as the public library 

to increase one’s knowledge.

• If already knowledgeable about digital technologies, volunteer to provide 

tutoring or training at the public library, youth center, or senior centers.

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Provide training and orientation sessions in multiple languages on digital 

technologies: what they are, how to use them, and the benefits and cautions 

around the most common applications.

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Provide information about digital services and products in plain, simple 

language; create informational material to help people understand their 

value, and offer one-on-one support to help people understand the 

technology and products offered. 

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Create awareness campaigns about eGovernment and the value of residents 

accessing local and tribal governing bodies through digital technologies. 

• Support the library and other institutions in promoting broad awareness of 

digital technologies.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Advocate policies that promote plain language explanations of digital 

technologies to consumers and other users.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 25 —

Principle 6: Digital literacy

Digital literacy skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use information to 

achieve goals, are a necessary pathway to digital inclusion. Digital communities 

meet the needs of their members for learning about technology and maintaining 

the skills necessary to take advantage of the opportunities enabled by it. The 

following goals help ensure that communities are able to provide effective digital 

literacy training to their members. 

Goals

• Digital literacy training needs and assets in the community are identified and 

evaluated, and a strategy for meeting the digital literacy needs of the 

community is adopted. 

• Digital literacy training in multiple languages is provided to individuals, 

businesses, and institutions through a variety of formats, including formal 

classes, real-time virtual help, and one-to-one assistance.

• Digital literacy instruction is embedded in all aspects of curriculum for K-12 

and higher education, as well as in lifelong learning activities.

• Information literacy training and assistance is available within the community 

to help individuals learn to find electronic information and evaluate digital 

resources. 

• Programs aimed at training consumers on the purchase, maintenance, and 

repair/recovery of technology equipment and services are available through 

community organizations.

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Volunteer at the library to tutor a new user on basic computer skills. 

• Help a neighbor connect to the Internet. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 26 —

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Coordinate existing efforts to provide digital skills and literacy training 

between libraries and other community organizations.

• Establish a computer lending program to enable home practice of basic 

digital literacy skills. 

• Organize a “digital literacy corps” of volunteers to improve digital literacy 

outreach in the community.

• Create a central repository for community training resources.

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Form partnerships with libraries and CBOs to provide trainers for computer 

skills classes.

• Develop online mentoring programs with local schools.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Provide online content and services that are designed for all levels of digital 

skills. 

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Support strategies to train and provide digital literacy mentors to libraries 

and CBOs providing community technology services.

• Support the creation of a national outreach and awareness campaign on why 

broadband matters, focused on key segments of non-adopters.

Principle 7: Consumer safety

Consumers — both individual and institutional — need accurate, unbiased 

information on how to safely navigate the digital world. Engaging in digital life 

requires the knowledge to protect against online threats, and the ability to limit 

unwanted access to and use of personal information. Online safety is a personal 

responsibility, but it also requires collective action to educate and assist 

consumers and enforce standards. The following goals reflect a shared agenda for 

creating the safest possible online environment for the community.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 27 —

Goals

• A strategy for training and educating community members about 

safeguarding personal information, using parental controls, protecting 

vulnerable populations from online bullying and exploitation , maintaining 

systems free of viruses, and protecting against other forms of online abuse 

has been adopted by all providers of Internet services and content.

• Privacy policies are adopted by businesses and government that are visible, 

easily accessible, and comprehensible to consumers.

• Local law enforcement agencies are equipped with strategies and the 

authority to pursue cybercriminals while protecting individual civil rights.

• Affordable software and technical assistance are available to support 

household network security for vulnerable populations.

• Information is widely disseminated through public information campaigns 

about individual and organizational rights and obligations with regard to 

intellectual property. 

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Maintain awareness of activities children are engaged in online.

• Secure home networks and accounts with strong passwords.

• Educate children about use of technology and online dangers. 

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Engage in coordinated educational activities and public awareness campaigns 

to raise the visibility of online safety issues.

• Develop procedures for securing sensitive client information.

• Develop partnerships and utilize common curriculums to educate consumers 

on purchasing and maintaining technology.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 28 —

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Implement policies and processes for protecting customer information and 

for training staff in following security procedures.

• Support legislation that enables prosecution of cybercrime. 

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Provide information about online safety with targeted messages to children 

and families, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations.

• Fully comply with policies and leading practices to ensure the security and 

safety of eGovernment activities. 

• Ensure that contractors handling sensitive government information have 

effective safeguards in place to protect data. 

• Coordinate efforts with other government agencies to fight security threats 

to public and government networks. 

• Support the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Urge adoption of consumer rights and data protection regulations.

• Support FCC efforts to create a voluntary cybersecurity certification program.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 29 —

6. Application principles

The application category includes those principles that represent areas where, 

once a community and its residents are connected and digitally literate, they can 

take advantage of the benefits of broadband in real and tangible ways. 

Community leaders in each of these areas working with the public can best assess 

local strengths, needs, and opportunities.

Principle 8: Economic and workforce development

Communities need to develop the knowledge and skills of future workers and 

entrepreneurs, as well as help the current workforce update its competencies to 

meet the needs of employers. Broadband adoption can generate new business 

opportunities in economically depressed areas and can help ensure sustainable 

growth. The following goals are aimed at enabling productive public-private 

partnerships to promote jobs and prosperity, to attract and retain business and 

workers, and to prepare the current and future workforce to use technology 

productively. 

Goals 

• Libraries and community-based organizations engage in partnerships and 

cross-agency collaborations to enhance the community’s workforce training 

capacity.

• Small businesses and local entrepreneurs are supported by eCommerce and 

eGovernment tools in their efforts to successfully engage with technology 

and promote their services online. 

• Workforce technology trainers are available in sufficient numbers to support 

the needs of the community.

• Online career information and specialized assistance with online job-seeking 

is available through local and tribal governing bodies, libraries, and other 

community-based organizations.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 30 —

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Become a mentor or career coach, to help new users of digital technologies 

understand their potential uses in employment.

• Keep up-to-date with technology skills by attending training provided in the 

community and through online tutorials.

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Provide assistance, training, tools, and resources for job seekers. 

• Develop partnerships with local colleges and technical schools to help new 

business owners access and use technology. 

• Develop public-private partnerships and cross-agency collaborations to 

better utilize and/or enhance the workforce training capacity of public 

libraries and community-based organizations.

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Make job application procedures appropriate to the skill level required for the 

position. 

• Provide public kiosks for submitting job applications. 

• Develop partnerships with libraries and CBOs to offer workforce training in 

specialty areas.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Include digital technologies as part of economic development plans and 

community economic needs assessments.

• Include digital access in all workforce development and jobs programs.

• Encourage cross-sector partnerships to promote workforce development.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Support the integration of broadband infrastructure into regional planning for 

economic development.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 31 —

• Support the creation of innovative national online career tools.

• Encourage federal agency partnerships to foster common goals toward 

workforce development.

Principle 9: Education

Educational institutions should ensure that students have the digital skills to reach 

their full potential by connecting them to a diverse range of electronic resources. 

Technology allows learners to discover educational opportunities, improve 

academic performance, and prepare to fill the jobs of today and tomorrow. These 

goals highlight education as a community asset that can benefit from readily 

available technology. 

Goals 

• Technology is embedded in curriculum design and instruction, in both formal 

K-12 and post-secondary institutions to prepare students for 21st century 

opportunities and challenges.

• Teachers are trained by qualified instructors on the use of technology in 

instruction.

• Home access to hardware and Internet connections is available for 

households with K-12 students to support academic success and interactions 

among caregivers, schools, and instructors.

• Public access technology centers provide assistance for doing homework, 

conducting online research, completing other academic tasks using digital 

resources, and supplementing home access. 

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Tutor students with their online homework, research, or other academic 

tasks.

• Volunteer in schools to help others gain digital literacy skills.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 32 —

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Develop computer loan programs or lease programs to provide learners with 

computer hardware in the home. 

• Provide awareness training for parents on educational technologies being 

used by students.

• Provide training and support for caregivers to enable them to interact with 

instructors and schools using digital technologies.

• Coordinate efforts of schools, libraries, and community-based technology 

centers to maximize delivery of in-school and out-of-school student learning 

tools. 

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Develop relationships with K-12 and post-secondary institutions to provide 

educators with current information on the skills employers need for the 21st 

century workforce.

• Create directed learning opportunities for secondary and post-secondary 

students as a long-term investment in the community’s workforce of 

tomorrow.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Support the local school system in its digital strategies.

• Leverage cable television and other franchises to support free or reduced cost 

access to the Internet for students of low-income households.

• Include student access centers in government facilities supporting children 

and youth, such as recreation centers, libraries, and non-profit youth service 

providers.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Support efforts to adopt standards for maintaining and securing electronic 

educational records.

• Support efforts to reduce barriers for obtaining E-rate funding for schools and 

libraries. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 33 —

Principle 10: Health care

Efficiencies and cost-savings in health care delivery, improvement to patient care, 

and support for independent living and management of health concerns are all 

enabled by access to broadband and digital technology. Technology supports 

more effective health care by connecting local practitioners and hospitals with 

information and specialists around the world; it contributes to better safety for 

patients by enhancing communication between health care providers and 

patients; and it creates opportunities for better health education and 

dissemination of information. The following goals aim to ensure that residents are 

able to actively manage their own health, and technology is used to provide 

efficient health service delivery.

Goals 

• Secure systems enable local medical professionals and community-based 

health clinics to share medical records among health care providers.

• Patients have access to user-centered online health information systems, 

medical records, and private online interaction with health care providers. 

• Health care providers and patients are given training on how to use health 

information systems. 

• Transitioning to online health care resources and services is managed to 

ensure support for new users and non-users of digital technologies, and for 

those who lack access to technology.

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Volunteer to help patients navigate online information at local hospitals and 

health clinics.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 34 —

• Utilize online health resources to improve health, manage chronic illnesses,

and communicate with health care providers.

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Provide access to electronic medical records and telehealth services through 

secure and private public access technology. 

• Create consolidated online local health resources accessible through health 

care agencies and providers, libraries, and other community organizations.

• Provide targeted training for using health technology.

• Provide training for the public on how to locate and evaluate health 

information.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Include the use of digital technologies in the development of health and 

fitness programs in the community.

• Promote partnerships between health care providers and institutions, such as 

the public library, that provide public access to digital technologies. 

• Ensure that public health information is distributed through digital 

technologies and that adequate access is available to all populations.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Support efforts to establish common standards for sharing research and 

clinical data. 

• Support efforts to ensure that health care delivery locations have access to 

sufficient bandwidth for high-demand applications.

Principle 11: Public safety and emergency services

Residents and first responders need integrated communications systems for 

emergency and disaster preparation, response, and recovery. Communities can 

strengthen their emergency responsiveness through effective deployment of 

digital technologies: enabling better ways to call for help, coordinate responses, 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 35 —

and distribute information during emergencies. Technology can also be mobilized 

to prevent and investigate criminal activity and to empower residents to improve 

neighborhood safety. The following goals reflect a need for coordinated, 

community-wide involvement in planning, preparing, and responding to 

emergencies and public safety threats in order to create a safe and resilient 

community. 

Goals 

• Communities have sufficient secure, resilient, and redundant wireless 

broadband capacity to support emergency responders throughout planning, 

preparing, responding, and recovering from emergencies. 

• Interoperable and redundant emergency alert networks are in place across 

mobile, wireless, and wired networks via Common Alerting Protocols.

• Public libraries, schools, and other community institutions provide digital 

access to residents or evacuees during emergencies. 

• Digital tools are used for community-developed online content relating to 

public safety, emergency preparation, and response. 

• Alternative emergency plans account for instances when technology is not 

available and for how to respond to the needs of community members who 

do not have technology access.

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Sign up for text and email services offered by local emergency services. 

• Create a neighborhood emergency communication network using social 

media technologies.

• Make a personal plan for emergencies, including contingencies for the loss of 

digital technologies.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 36 —

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Engage actively in emergency and disaster planning to identify the range of 

activities that the institution can support in education, prevention, planning, 

response, and recovery.

• Develop continuity plans for the institution that provide for resiliency and 

quick recovery in order to support the community. Specifically create 

contingency plans for the loss of digital technologies.

• Train staff and test the emergency plans. 

• Serve as an information center on the wide range of ways that people can be 

safe in normal and extreme conditions.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Address issues of digital access and inclusion in the comprehensive 

emergency plan. Specifically address the resiliency of digital technologies in 

the community and make contingency plans for the loss of the technologies 

and for rapid recovery.

• Actively include the public library and other institutions involved with digital 

inclusion in planning, training, and testing of emergency plans. 

• Make emergency plans, and other public safety information available 

digitally, with specific emphasis on populations that have special needs.

• Invest in proven current digital technologies such as enhanced 911 systems, 

computer aided dispatch, and electronic mapping technologies.

• Provide online resources for residents to use for developing personal disasterpreparedness plans.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Support the development of national interoperable public safety wireless 

broadband networks. 

• Support national efforts to ensure that broadband communications are 

preserved during emergencies.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 37 —

Principle 12: Civic engagement

Electronic interaction between community institutions, government agencies, 

and individuals creates enhanced opportunities for active participation in 

community affairs. Community members can make use of technology to develop 

and promote a wide range of civic activities and connections that enrich public life 

while expanding the network of involved participants. Technology can also help 

enhance government transparency and accountability. The following goals aim to 

create increased opportunities for the public to participate in governance, by 

bridging officials and constituents online and by providing the means for people 

to voice their opinions and influence decisions. 

Goals 

• The public connects directly to governments and their agencies, and with 

each other, in order to learn about and discuss public issues and policies.

• Online access to government information and services meets interoperability 

standards and is appropriate for users of all skill levels and language needs. 

• The community has convenient, secure, and private digital access to 

government resources and services.

• Technology is utilized to organize community events, to encourage 

volunteerism and youth participation, and to facilitate problem-solving for 

community concerns.

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUAL

• Provide feedback to government agencies about online services.

• Join — or start — community networks to communicate with others about 

shared concerns. 

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Provide a central civic engagement portal for information to residents about 

local events and resources, as well as online government services. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 38 —

• Encourage the use of blogs and notification tools so that libraries and CBOs 

that help people navigate public information can be kept updated with 

changes to government websites. 

• Become “online town halls” for eDemocracy, for participants to shape public 

agendas and discuss public issues.

• Embed civic engagement and civic knowledge in education and digital 

literacy training.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Educate community members about their civic role; provide opportunities for 

them to interact with government agencies and officials using tools that fit 

individual or specific community needs.

• Provide residents with the ability to create “My eGovernment” to personalize 

their interaction with government agencies and officials.

• Encourage the private sector to work with open information, and to develop 

new applications and ways of using government data.

• Apply care to initial design, updates, and the frequency of redesign to 

minimize users’ confusion and the need to re-familiarize themselves with 

government websites. 

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Dedicate resources to develop open standards for government information. 

• Promote the adoption of social media technologies that government can use 

to interact with residents. 

Principle 13: Social connections

Individual members of a community should have access to technologies that 

promote social engagement and the pursuit of independent learning and creative 

interests. Technology provides new opportunities for people to express 

themselves, enjoy activities with family and friends, and get support for personal 

problems. Lifelong learning and access to new ideas can also spark innovation and 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 39 —

creativity. The following goals reflect the ability of technology to foster 

relationships that support quality of life and well-being in digital communities. 

Goals 

• Interactive, high-quality multi-cultural content is available through public 

libraries, museums, archives, and other cultural institutions.

• Programs to encourage development of local content and participation in 

social networks are available for vulnerable and diverse community members.

• Intergenerational ties are strengthened through technology interaction

between youth and older community members.

• The community supports the use of technology for digital preservation and 

appropriate sharing of local history and contemporary culture in order to 

build an enhanced sense of community, belonging, and continuity. 

• Support and tools are available to produce, archive, and distribute local 

media programs and other digital content produced by local voices.

• Digital technologies are used as a means of preserving and sharing diverse 

cultures, if appropriate.

Sample strategies

INDIVIDUALS

• Help an older friend or relative connect to online support communities or 

communicate with distant family members.

• Connect with like-minded people around an interest area or hobby.

• Provide translation services to community organizations serving multilingual 

populations.

LIBRARIES, CBOS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS

• Maintain directories of locally produced content. 

• Design a digital story project for collecting local history. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 40 —

• Support community-based design efforts to mobilize rapid development of 

high-quality local content by maintaining technology labs and incubators.

• Ensure that online content is available in languages utilized by the 

community.

• Develop content and applications geared towards a variety of different 

abilities and cultures.

LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNING BODIES

• Provide funding for cultural institutions to develop local content.

BUSINESS SECTOR

• Use social networking to promote local recreational activities and events.

• Support crowd-sourcing development of new applications.

INFLUENCING POLICY

• Advocate for use of social networking to facilitate respectful conversations 

among people with differing viewpoints.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 41 —

8. Getting started on digital 

inclusion

Every community will take its own path to becoming digitally inclusive, depending 

on its unique set of needs and priorities, the structure of its government and 

institutions, and its styles of leadership and civic engagement. 

Nevertheless, most communities will be able to use a common set of steps to 

identify both their needs and the actions required to address those needs. The 

steps outlined below are processes drawn from a range of efforts to build better 

communities. 

1. Convene stakeholders

Successful strategies to address important community goals are predicated on 

broad and sustained stakeholder participation, and the list of institutions 

important to creating a truly inclusive community can be long and diverse:

• The local city, county, and tribal governments, as well as those in neighboring 

areas, will be essential players. Elected leaders and senior appointed officials 

have specific responsibilities for strategic and community planning across a 

wide range of areas.

• Public agencies, especially public libraries, are essential to the process. 

Whether they are part of local or district government or independent 

institutions, public libraries have become the central institutional player in 

providing public access to digital technologies. Other important public 

agencies include the public schools (K-12), institutions of higher learning 

(especially community colleges and adult education programs), economic 

development agencies, agencies with community centers (such as recreation 

departments), and public housing departments. In many local governments a 

central office of technology plays a critical role in digital management issues 

across the various public agencies and should be actively engaged in the 

discussion.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 42 —

• Non-profit community-based organizations can be especially effective in 

reaching hard-to-serve populations, and vary widely from one community to 

another. Community-based organizations are often more nimble and 

experimental than government entities. Likely partners for community-based 

organizations are non-profits that serve targeted populations within a 

community — including people who are low-income or homeless, populations 

with disabilities, or people from specific ethnic cultures. Organizations that 

provide supportive housing, job training, and childcare can reach residents 

who need access to digital technologies and that may have otherwise been 

overlooked. Community foundations can serve as neutral conveners and as

sources of initial funding.

• The business community includes many potential partners. 

Telecommunication companies have an essential role. Major employers in 

need of trained employees can provide valued support, especially if there is a 

single, dominant employer within the community. Chambers of Commerce 

and other business groups often recognize the economic imperatives for 

digital inclusion. Businesses play an obvious role in the aspects of digital 

inclusion impacting economic development. Many businesses make a point 

of incorporating all segments of the community in their civic and social 

philanthropic activities. Businesses can also provide Internet hotspots for 

public access.

• Residents, be they individuals or representatives of neighborhood or housing 

associations, can help ground digital inclusion efforts in the needs that are 

most relevant to the community. Civic engagement begins with becoming 

informed on digital inclusion issues, and is followed by engaging with local 

organizations in order to raise peoples’ awareness about the importance of 

adopting broadband and actively participating in a digital society. 

Residents’ participation on committees and task forces help institutions 

develop a broader perspective of the values of digital inclusion and its effect 

on the community; institutional and organizational leaders can expand 

resident participation by conducting surveys, forums, and workshops in the 

communities where they live and for the people they serve.

Such a diverse set of stakeholders will not inevitably come together. Participatory 

action will require leadership — a catalyst to initiate the participatory process, 

engage the broad array of stakeholders, and guide the process to success. Given 

its experience in digital technologies and its reputation for being non-partisan and 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 43 —

welcoming to all, the public library is uniquely positioned to assume this 

leadership role.

2. Develop a shared community understanding of 

digital inclusion

In an area as complex as digital inclusion, community stakeholders need to begin 

with a shared understanding of the needs and the goals. 

• What does the term digital literacy mean for the community?

• What digital technologies are currently available, and to whom?

• Where are the gaps? Who is left out and at risk of being left behind?

• What are the most important community goals of digital inclusion: economic 

development, education, job training, health care, emergency management, 

social connection?

The answers to these questions will necessarily vary by community. A key 

component of developing community answers should be a needs assessment that 

is based on systematic data collection and analysis. A shared vision should emerge 

from the joint learning process – a vision that describes where the community 

wants to be in a technology-driven world and what it needs to do to get there.

3. Create a community action plan

Grounded in the shared vision, communities need to develop an actionable plan

that outlines specific goals, measures of success, timelines, and assignments of 

responsibility. Some communities will make large comprehensive plans; others 

will create more narrowly targeted plans that utilize their limited resources as 

effectively as possible. Either approach can work.

4. Implement the plan

Drawing on government appropriations, business contributions, philanthropy, or 

combination of sources, communities will need to develop the mechanisms 

necessary to generate the resources required to execute the plan. It is important 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 44 —

to ensure early success that can be celebrated and promoted, creating awareness 

and building momentum. A well-structured monitoring effort will allow 

community stakeholders to provide mutual support, encouragement, and 

accountability.

5. Evaluate and revise the plan

Change is the only constant. Digital devices and transmission capabilities, 

workforce requirements, economic drivers, and population demographics are all 

constantly changing. Change may be incremental and easily incorporated. Or, 

change may be shockingly dramatic, as when a major employer leaves – or one 

arrives. As circumstances change, implementation plans must change as well.

In today’s information-based economy, digital inclusion is not a simple, one-time 

checkbox. Digital inclusion will require sustained effort, ongoing evaluation, and 

the willingness to revise the community’s plans and strategies.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 45 —

Appendix 1. Partner 

information

Institute of Museum and Library Services

The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal 

support for the nation’s 123,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. The Institute’s 

mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong 

learning and cultural and civic engagement. The Institute works at the national 

level and in coordination with state and local organizations to provide leadership 

through research, policy development and grant-making. To learn more about the 

Institute, please visit www.imls.gov.

University of Washington

The Technology & Social Change Group (TASCHA) at the University of 

Washington Information School explores the design, use, and effects of 

information and communication technologies in communities facing social and 

economic challenges. With experience in 50 countries, TASCHA brings together a 

multidisciplinary network of social scientists, engineers, and development 

practitioners to conduct research, advance knowledge, create public resources, 

and improve policy and program design. Our purpose? To spark innovation and 

opportunities for those who need it most. Learn more at tascha.uw.edu.

International City/County Management 

Association

ICMA, the International City/County Management Association, advances 

professional local government worldwide. Our mission is to create excellence in 

local governance by developing and advancing professional management to 

create sustainable communities that improve lives worldwide. ICMA provides 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 46 —

member support; publications; data and information; peer and results-oriented 

assistance; and training and professional development to nearly 9,000 city, town, 

and county experts and other individuals and organizations throughout the world. 

The management decisions made by ICMA’s members affect millions of 

individuals living in thousands of communities, from small villages and towns to 

large metropolitan areas.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 47 —

Appendix 2. Partner team 

members

Digital Inclusion Working Group

Steve Albertson Community Voice Mail

Mary Carr Spokane Community College

Mark Cooper Consumer Federation of America

Cathy DeRosa OCLC 

Jon Gant University of Illinois 

Chris Gates Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE)

Martín Gómez Los Angeles Public Library

Link Hoewing Verizon

John Horrigan TechNet

David Keyes City of Seattle

Mike Lee AARP

Traci Morris Homahota Consulting 

Mare Parker O’Toole Medfield Public Library 

Frances Roehm Skokie Public Library 

Jane Smith Patterson e-NC Authority

Sarah Washburn TechSoup
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 48 —

Digital Inclusion Network 

4-H National Headquarters Jim Kahler

Access Humboldt Sean McLaughlin

Access to Justice Don Horowitz

Alaska Children’s Trust / 

Friends of the Alaska Children’s Trust Panu Lucier

Alcatel-Lucent Greg Kovich

American Association of Museums Zeinab Ulucan

American Foundation for the Blind Paul Schroeder

American Library Association Alan Inouye

Arizona Telemedicine Program Mike Holcomb

Association of African American Museums Bill Billingsley

Balboa Park Online Collaborative Perian Sully

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Karen Archer Perry

Blacksburg Electronic Village Brenda van Gelder

Blandin Foundation / Treacy Information Services Ann Treacy

Boys & Girls Clubs of Tennessee John K. Berry

California Academy of Sciences Elizabeth Babcock

California State Library Stacey Aldrich

Center for Media Justice Amalia Deloney

Cleveland Public Library Felton Thomas

Comcast Juan Otero

Communication Service for the Deaf Benjamin J. Soukup

Computers for Youth Elizabeth Stock

Council of State Governments John Mountjoy

Dell Kerry Murray

Department of Labor, Center for Faith-based 

& Neighborhood Partnerships Rev. Phil Tom
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 49 —

E-Democracy.org Steve Clift

EdLab Karen Peterson

Georgetown County Library Dwight McInvaill

Georgia Division of Archives and History David Carmicheal

Global Center for Cultural Entrepreneurship Alice Loy

Google Jenn Taylor

Grand Rapids Community Media Center Laurie Cirivello

Greater Auburn-Gresham Development 

Corporation Ernest Sanders

Hardy Telecommunications Derek Barr

Indianapolis Museum of Art Ron Stein

Instructional Technology Council Christine Mullins

Intel Rick Herrmann

Iowa Statewide Interoperable Communications 

System Board Jim Bogner

J. Paul Getty Museum Nik Honeysett

Knight Foundation Judith Kleinberg

Lyrasis Kate Nevins

Maine State Library Linda Lord

Miami Dade Public Library System Raymond Santiago

Microsoft Andrea Taylor

NAACP Hilary Shelton

National Association of Counties Jackie Byers

National Indian Telecommunications Institute Karen Buller

National Information Standards Organization Todd Carpenter

National Internet2 K20 Initiative James Werle

National Library Service for the Blind 

and Physically Handicapped Jennifer Sutton

Net Literacy Don Kent
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 50 —

New York State Library Mary Linda Todd

Nez Perce Tribe Christina St. Germaine

Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN) Holly Ross

Oklahoma State Library Susan McVey

Partnership for a Connected Illinois Debbie Strauss

Pew Internet & American Life Project Lee Rainie

Public Library Association Barb Macikas

Rainbow PUSH Coalition Kimberly Marcus

Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation Stu Freiman

Rural School and Community Trust Rachel Tompkins

Rural Telecommunications Congress Greg Laudeman

Saint Paul Neighborhood Network Mike Wassenaar

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Council Jamie Bay

ShinyDoor Angela Siefer

Syracuse University David Lankes

Telecommunity Resource Center Gene Crick

Texas State Library Peggy Rudd

Texas State Library and Archives Commission Chris Jowaisas

Transmission Project Belinda Rawlins

University of Illinois Colin Rhinesmith

University of Maryland John Bertot

University of Texas at Austin Sharon Strover

University of Washington Miranda Belarde-Lewis

University of Wyoming W. Reed Scull

Urban Libraries Council Susan Benton

VisionTech360 Bill Gillis

Weeksville Heritage Center Pamela Green

Youth Policy Institute Sarah Serota
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 51 —
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 52 —

Appendix 3. Summary of 

research on digital inclusion

Internet connectivity offers a range of important benefits for individuals and 

communities. It increases equal access to opportunities such as jobs and work 

force training, enables people to find information about their health, spurs civil 

engagement, and supports other productive activities. Recognizing the Internet’s 

growing ubiquity, there have been many efforts to reduce the barriers to access to 

information and communication technologies (ICTs). Initially the focus was on 

removing obvious barriers to access — a technology-centric approach concerned 

mainly with lowering the cost of entry into the digital marketplace. Lately there is 

growing recognition that the more significant barriers include such factors as 

attitudes, interests, and abilities. 

In view of this shift in understanding, current initiatives — instead of aiming to 

bridge a “digital divide” — are increasingly directed toward fostering “digital 

inclusion.” The technology-centric term digital divide separates people into haves 

and have-nots; digital inclusion is an all-encompassing term, focused on equity 

within three areas: access, digital and information literacy, and relevant content. 

Digital inclusion recognizes that facilitating participation in digital life is an 

objective that will require ongoing, thoughtful action, including making available 

the necessary technology. This people-centric perspective will accordingly call for 

an ongoing assessment of community conditions and needs. Building Digital 

Communities: A framework for action (“Framework”) aims to be a tool for such 

assessment. 

This section provides an overview of the articles, reports, and other resources that 

informed the creation of the Framework. The review covers materials in four 

subject areas:

1. Self-assessment models 

2. Indicator systems 

3. Local and international digital inclusion policy initiatives 

4. Reasons for non-adoption (and the unmet needs of those without digital 

access)
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 53 —

Assessment models

Three main assessment models helped inform the structure of the Framework: 

the LEED Certification Rating System (U.S. Green Building Council), Tree City 

USA (Arbor Day Foundation), and the National Information Standards 

Organization (NISO) Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital 

Collections. These models share a number of design strengths. They are 

aspirational, flexible, and easy to understand, enabling grassroots action towards 

specific goals and also fostering collaboration among organizations. That is, these 

models emphasize a “bottom-up” approach. 

More specifically, each model provides a strong overall purpose, an easily 

comprehensible structure and categories of focus, and specific guidelines for 

meeting the overall goals of the model. They differ in levels of prescriptiveness, 

elaborateness, and technical specifications. For example, the LEED system has 

strict requirements for each level of certification, and applicants are able to “selfselect” which level they feel qualified for and choose among a menu of options to 

achieve it. In contrast, the Tree City USA certification system has just four criteria, 

which are straightforward and relatively easy to achieve. Building Digital 

Communities: A framework for action aims to provide a clear structure and 

targeted goals that allows for flexibility in implementing strategies. 

Indicator systems

Indicator systems provide useful guidance for achieving the right level of 

specificity for the Framework; they also help inform how to measure progress 

across many different types of communities. Shared indicators are used widely in 

social, economic, environmental, health, and educational policy domains. They 

are usually developed by a government or nonprofit sponsoring organization, 

typically beginning with a process of soliciting community input in determining 

the indicators to track. An example is the Boston Indicators Project — a set of 

tools for organizations to track trends and measure progress towards such 

community goals as improved health, greater literacy, and reduced poverty. 

Indicator systems have many advantages; they allow shared data collection and 

can produce useful quantitative data on progress toward community goals. 

However, the level of specificity in these systems was considered to be beyond 

the scope of this Framework. Communities will need to begin by developing their 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 54 —

own working definition of digital inclusiveness and by setting their own goals for 

achieving that objective — and developing indicators is a later step.

Nevertheless, the participatory process used in developing indicator systems was 

useful in guiding the process of developing the Framework. For example, the 

Burlington Legacy Project engaged citizens of Burlington, Vermont in an inclusive 

“listening and learning” process to set sustainability goals for the city’s future. 

Other indicator systems relied on experts and representatives from different 

sectors to help shape the structure and content of the indicators before validating 

them with a community. Work on the proposed Framework combined these two 

approaches. A diverse group of experts from many different sectors assembled to 

discuss all of the elements, engaging in a serial review process as the proposed 

Framework was developed. In addition, the proposed Framework was introduced 

to select communities as part of a series of forums to hear from the general public 

and from individuals and organizations who would be responsible for 

implementing it — in a “teaching, listening, and learning” process.

Local and international policy initiatives

The initial elements of the Framework — the vision, principles and goals —

emerged from an examination of local and international policy initiatives around 

digital inclusion. Although each digital inclusion policy initiative is shaped by the 

specific concerns of the particular community, all share many common goals and 

strategies. Most commonly, they highlight the themes of access, relevant 

content, and information literacy; other shared areas of concern are 

infrastructure, civil engagement, and affordability. 

• Access goals relate to the software and hardware that enables connectivity; 

they may also relate to affordability and infrastructure. 

• Providing local information for and by local residents is part of relevant 

content, and is considered important for creating interest in digital life; it is 

also an aspect of eGovernment as well as civic engagement in policy 

initiatives. 

• Affordability refers to costs, usually to individual users of technology.

The definitions of infrastructure and information literacy vary across policy 

initiatives. Infrastructure initiatives in the U.S. have — until recently —been 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 55 —

primarily at the state or local level; they set network capacity goals based on 

existing local conditions. Non-U.S. initiatives often set more ambitious 

infrastructure targets, as in bringing broadband or wireless connectivity to rural 

populations. Information literacy comprises a wide range of definitions rather 

than a standardized skill-set. For example, U.K. information literacy efforts focus 

on job-related applications, whereas U.S. efforts emphasize the skills needed to 

conduct job searches on the Internet. In San Francisco, basic information literacy 

includes both these objectives. (Indeed, San Francisco’s ambitious initiative, 

inspired by its nearby technological hub, was designed to enable its citizens to 

become creators and innovators of Internet content as the long-term goal of 

information literacy.) Most definitions of information literacy tend to overlook the 

growing interest in the “fun” aspects of Internet connectivity — although surveys 

indicate that people want to participate in online social networks, including 

playing games. More recent discussions embrace these and other expansive 

understandings of information literacy. 

In developing the Framework, the common focus areas and goals were gleaned 

from these different initiatives. Important goals also came from the National 

Broadband Plan, addressing inequalities in access, planning for future expansion, 

and building social and economic well-being at the local level. The goals were 

further shaped to reflect a forward-looking, optimistic vision of how a digital

community may be experienced by its residents.

Reasons for non-adoption 

The explosive growth in the use of information and communication technologies 

in everyday life, while offering many positive benefits, has also left many 

Americans behind. Research shows that technology adoption and digital literacy 

levels differ according to attitudes about the Internet, income, education level, 

disability, and age. In gathering information for the Framework, an important 

element was to incorporate an understanding of non-adopters, embedding goals 

that address their concerns. 

There are a number of barriers to adoption. Cost is a major barrier: low-income 

homes are less likely to have at-home access to the Internet, due in part to high 

Internet subscription rates. Hardware and software costs can also result in nonadoption, or cause users to become “digital drop-outs.” The elderly and people 

with disabilities are also less likely to have at-home Internet access or to use 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 56 —

public access computers. To address these barriers, research documents three 

strategies: literacy classes, tiered (or reduced) Internet subscription rates, and 

outreach efforts. 

Classes for digital literacy (covering computer ownership and maintenance) help 

new users gain confidence as well as skills; more advanced classes that introduce 

specific applications provide opportunities for embedding new information 

literacy skills. Reduced, subsidized, or tiered subscription rates make access 

affordable at home (and at community institutions). 

Creating or improving outreach is important especially to publicize such lowercost Internet options, digital literacy programs, and related digital inclusion 

efforts. In many initiatives, implementation has included outreach in the earlier 

stages of the process, inviting residents and business to articulate from the start 

what specifically matters to them. 

According to many studies, however, the primary reason for non-adoption is not 

cost but lack of interest. Research distinguishes several groups, based on different 

attitudes: those who do not recognize Internet access as a need; those who see 

access as a need, but who face financial barriers; and those who are inhibited by 

non-financial barriers. In order to counteract lack of confidence, fear, and 

mistrust, the benefits of connectivity need to be properly communicated, by 

advocating for information and digital literacy and by helping people understand 

the significance of being able to do things online.

Lack of relevant content is another reason for non-adoption. Research suggests 

that if non-adopters fail to “see” a place for themselves on the Internet, with 

content that is relevant to them, their interest wanes. For example, some nonEnglish speakers cannot find materials to read online. Even when language is not 

a barrier, local content may be lacking. One article reported that people searching 

for ads for local businesses were unable to locate that content. There is a basic 

need to connect offline experiences to online content.

In rural areas that currently rely on dial-up access, adoption continues to be a 

problem. Because telecommunications providers lack a financial incentive to 

upgrade their services, and public funding is inadequate to spur infrastructure 

investments, many eager broadband adopters are left wanting and are effectively 

excluded from digital life because dial-up speeds are no longer adequate to be 

considered “true access.” 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 57 —

Finally, the hardest to reach populations are the elderly, the poor, and the less 

educated, followed by racial or ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. 

Targeted outreach to these populations is essential. 

These differences in reasons for non-adoption, along with the recognition that 

building digital literacy skills happens over a long period of time, lie behind many 

of the goals in the Framework. Examples include the focus on providing digital 

and information literacy instruction, and ensuring that transitions to online 

applications (as in eGovernment and Health) take into account the needs of new 

users of digital technologies, people with disabilities, and others with barriers to 

access. The Framework also emphasizes the need to build awareness of the 

benefits of connectivity (the demand side), in addition to supplying infrastructure 

and providing more access points (the supply side). Greater demand will ensure 

broader use of improved resources and sustained interest in digital inclusion 

initiatives. 

Conclusion

The review of self-assessment models, indicator systems, public policy initiatives, 

and digital inclusion research covered over 240 resources (see Bibliography). This 

extensive review helped define the structure and scope of the Framework, while 

informing its specific principles, goals and strategies.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 58 —

Appendix 4. Overview of 

community and leadership 

forums

IMLS, UW, and ICMA convened three community and three leadership forums for 

digital inclusion in September and October 2011. The forums generated feedback 

from community residents and leaders on the general topic of digital inclusion, 

the content and structure of the Proposed Framework, and the opportunities and 

challenges for implementation. The first took place on September 12 in Los 

Angeles, with additional events held on October 11 in Oklahoma City and October 

18 in Bangor, Maine. The three states in which to hold forums – California, 

Oklahoma, and Maine – were selected to provide a level of national regional 

diversity, in addition to existing broadband initiatives and strong leadership by the 

state library. The specific cities – Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, and Bangor - were 

selected with State Library input to provide:

• A mix of rural and urban environments within driving distance of the 

forum locations

• Income and demographic diversity; mix of digital saturation and pockets 

of non-adoption

• Existing innovative digital inclusion initiatives or close connections with 

other organizations working in the digital inclusion arena

IMLS, UW, and ICMA partnered with the state libraries of California, Oklahoma, 

and Maine to organize the events. These libraries – with financial support from the 

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - worked with local libraries in their home states 

to host each community and leadership forum, including the selection of 

attendees. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 59 —

Community Forums

The community forums began with a presentation and plenary session to provide 

basic education on digital inclusion, the structure and content of the Proposed 

Framework, and to frame small group discussions .The plenary session included a 

panel discussion where the local library director discussed local broadband efforts 

and the relevance of digital inclusion in that location. 

Later, attendees were separated into four discussion groups. Small group 

moderators from the UW lead the groups in a process of deliberative dialogue 

whereby participants began conversation with their personal experiences or 

digital inclusion (or exclusion) and proceeded to exchange ideas about digital 

inclusion in their communities and how the Framework might be implemented to 

improve digital opportunities.

At the end of the evening, discussion groups were asked to “report out” the most 

important themes of their discussion to the entire community forum. In many 

cases, the themes were not principles or goals at all, and rather reflections on the 

flow of the conversation or next steps. For example, one group in Oklahoma 

reported that they spent very little of their time together talking about devices or 

technology, and a great deal of it speaking about people and partnerships. 

Description of attendees across three locations

A total of 115 residents of areas in and around Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, and 

Maine attended the community forums. Male and female participants, who were 

selected based on their affiliation with targeted community groups, background, 

and interest in digital inclusion, ranged in age and professional experience. They 

did not have to have prior knowledge of the Framework for Digitally Inclusive 

Communities to be invited to attend. 

• In Los Angeles, the community forum was attended by 37 people who 

came from an art museum, cultural heritage groups, the Los Angeles 

Public Library (e.g. docents, librarians, and directors), the Los Angeles 

Unified School District (e.g. administrators, teachers, and parent support 

services), various Friends groups, social services organizations, and 

technology education centers.

• In Oklahoma City, the community forum was attended by 31 people who 

represented Asian ethnic groups, city government, Native American 

tribes, K-12 education, community colleges, cultural museums, health 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 60 —

care, people with disabilities, public libraries, public radio, and social 

services organizations. 

• In Bangor, the community forum was attended by more than 40 people 

such as city government officials (e.g. city manager, mayors, and the 

chief of police), disability aides, K-12 educators, health professionals (e.g. 

nurses and Medicare liaisons), information technology workers, librarians 

and library staff, local business owners, students, and volunteers. 

Specifically, Cooperators sought feedback on underserved populations including 

people from rural areas. 

Description of data collection and analytic methods used 

UW used multiple methods to collect data about participants’ experience with and 

feelings toward digital inclusion and the proposed Framework for Digitally 

Inclusive Communities throughout the forum, including the discussion groups, 

polling, and surveys. 

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion groups were recorded and notes were taken by moderators and 

volunteer scribes. The data were coded using two approaches and combined for 

cross-tabulation: 

1. Where participant dialogue was directly related to specific principles and 

goals, the dialogue was labeled using the Framework as the source for 

codes. This approach was used to examine the frequency of comments 

made about specific principles. 

2. General themes were identified in participant dialogue. The source of the 

coding was the dialogue itself, rather than the Framework. This approach 

was used to assess whether or not the Framework captures the most 

significant concerns of digital inclusiveness as expressed by community 

members. 

POLLING

During the small group discussion, participants were given three colored dots and 

asked to use them to identify the most important principles in the Framework. 

Participants were able to use as many of their dots as they wished on one 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 61 —

principle, providing them with the opportunity to “bullet vote” for principles they 

felt were highly important relative to others.

SURVEYS

Attendees were asked to complete a survey upon arrival and another survey at the 

end of the session, in order to analyze attitudinal changes among attendees 

between arrival and departure. Both surveys contained the following questions: 

1. How knowledgeable do you feel about digital inclusion?

2. How important of an issue is digital inclusion for you personally?

3. How important do you think it is for your community to work towards 

digital inclusion?

4. If digital inclusion was made a priority in your community, how much do 

you think economic opportunities would improve? 

5. What are the 3 most important principles of digital inclusion for your 

community? 

Leadership Forums

Leadership forums were conducted the day following the community forums with 

the following participation: Los Angeles (5 participants), Oklahoma City (11 

participants), and Bangor, Maine (30 participants). The leadership forums allowed 

direct engagement with the community leaders best positioned to encourage and 

organize the implementation of the Proposed Framework.

The leadership forums were intended to convene leaders in a community who had 

the position and authority to advance digital inclusion efforts. Leaders were asked 

if they found the framework helpful and whether or not they would use it in their 

community. Additionally, they provided feedback about implementation

approaches.

Leadership forum participants included library leaders, local government 

representatives (appointed and elected), and non-profit and/or business 

leadership that influence local policy priorities. Participants in the leadership 

forums were selected to represent the demographics and specific concerns of 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 62 —

communities. Attendees were selected by ICMA and the state librarians of 

California, Maine, and Oklahoma, with final approval by IMLS. Invitations were 

sent from the state librarian, and in the case of local government invitees, ICMA 

sent follow-up invitations. 

Format of leadership forums

The leadership forums focused on the observations of the group as they related to 

the principles and goals of the framework, implementation options, potential 

obstacles to implementation, and the tools needed to implement the framework 

in their communities. To gain a better understanding of the digital inclusion 

landscape in their communities and to hear the needs of local residents, 

leadership forum participants were strongly encouraged to attend and observe 

the community forums. 

Except for the Bangor, ME leadership forum where parts of the forum were 

conducted in smaller groups, the leadership forums were conducted as open 

group discussions, wherein attendees were encouraged to respond to directed 

questions, ask questions of each other, and ask questions to the Cooperators 

Team. 

Directed questions were kept high level. The questions posed to attendees in the 

leadership forums included:

1. What are your thoughts on digital inclusion?

2. Would a national framework be useful?

3. What do you think about the framework’s structure, the principles and 

goals? 

4. What’s missing from the framework?

5. What implementation scenario would be the most helpful to you?

6. What tools would you need to adopt and implement the framework?

7. How could we make the framework more relevant to the work you’re 

doing?

8. What advice do you have for us?
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 63 —
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 64 —

Appendix 5. Overall Analysis of 

the Community Forums

Summary of overall analysis of the community 

forums

• While only 11% of community forum attendees felt very knowledgeable

of digital inclusion before attending the forum, 29% felt very 

knowledgeable after participating in the forum.

• 17% of the participants felt that digital inclusion was a very important 

personal issue before the forum, while after participating in the forum 

60% felt that digital inclusion was an important personal issue.

• Even before attending the forum, 64% of participants felt that their 

community should be addressing issues of digital inclusion; after 

participating in the forum, 72% felt that their community should be 

addressing digital inclusion issues.

• The survey respondents selected the following principles most 

frequently: availability & affordability, education, economic & workforce 

development and public access.

• Over the course of three community forums and twelve discussion 

groups, there were a total of 268 documented comments about 

availability & affordability. The next three most discussed principles were 

adoption & digital literacy, quality of life, and education. 

Surveys & principle-specific findings 

The surveys and polls conducted during the community forums showed a strong 

trend to changing attitudes as a result of participating in the forums and 

discussions with others about the topic of digital inclusion. Overall, participants 

felt they were more knowledgeable about digital inclusion, and also felt more 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 65 —

strongly that digital inclusion is an important issue for themselves, personally, as 

well as for their communities. 

Figure 1 shows the change in knowledge levels about digital inclusion. The intake 

survey found that 11% of attendees felt very knowledgeable of digital inclusion 

before attending the community forums, while the exit survey found that after 

participating in the forum, 29% then felt very knowledgeable of digital inclusion.

Figure 1: Knowledge of digital inclusion

From the intake survey to the exit survey, the number of attendees who felt that 

digital inclusion was a very important personal issue grew by 17% to 60%. In both 

surveys, the majority of participants felt that it was very important for their 

community to work towards digital inclusion, however, even this attitude shifted 

towards a perception of even greater importance among some participation. 

To help understand whether the Proposed Framework and subsequent 

implementation activities would be perceived as valuable for communities, 

attendees were asked if they believed economic opportunities would improve if 

digital inclusion was a priority in their community. Before attending the forum, 

43% of participants responded that they believed economic opportunity would 

improve a lot; by the end of the forum, that perception had increased to 50% of 

attendees feeling economic opportunities would improve a lot if digital inclusion 

was a priority in their community. 

11%

27%

31%

25%

6%

0%

29%

44%

21%

5%

0% 1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Very 4 3 2 Not at all No 

Response

Intake survey

Exit survey
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 66 —

In the forced choice exercise presented in the intake and exit surveys, attendees 

were asked to choose the top 3 most important principles in the Proposed 

Framework principles. At polling during the small group discussions, attendees 

were allowed to apply three votes to the principles, giving them the ability to vote 

more than once for principles they thought were especially important. Before 

engaging in discussion, public access, education, and economic & workforce 

development were considered the most important principle areas. After 

discussion with their small group, however, the availability & affordability rose to 

the most important place, while education, and economic & workforce remained 

in the top three. Figure 2 below demonstrates the side-by-side ranking of 

Framework principles from the intake survey, exit survey, and the poll.

Figure 2 Ranking of Framework principles from surveys

Within the groups, certain principle areas garnered more discussion. Consistent 

with the ranking exercise, availability & affordability was the most discussed 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Quality of life

Health care

Public safety & emergency 

services

Civic engagement

Economic & workforce 

development

Education

Consumer education & 

protection

Adoption & digital literacy

Accessibility for people with 

disabilities

Public access

Availability & affordability

Intake survey

Exit survey

Poll
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 67 —

aspect of digital inclusion. The next three most discussed digital inclusion 

principles were adoption & digital literacy, quality of life, and education. 

Conversations about the principle areas somewhat varied by city. For example, 

though it received 31 unique comments in Bangor, the four discussion groups in 

Los Angeles spent little to no time discussing health care. Oklahoma City was 

more concerned with adoption and digital literacy than the other locations.

Discussion themes

For each community forum site, general themes emerged both related to the 

Proposed Framework and arising spontaneously from the discussion groups. 

These themes were ranked across the forums and classified as high-range, midrange, or low-range. High-range themes appeared in all four discussion groups 

within a single forum, mid-range themes in three out of four of those discussion 

groups, and low-range themes in two out of four of the discussion groups. 

Table 1 shows the cumulative themes, how the themes were ranked at each site, 

and common ranking among two or more sites. No common themes among the 

three cities shared a common ranking. However, many themes overlapped 

between two locations. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 68 —

Table 1: Discussion themes by number of sites and ranking (high, medium, or 

low)

High-range themes – present in at least 10 of 12 discussion groups

AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY

Availability and affordability was discussed in 11 of 12 discussion groups, the only 

theme with this distinction. It was a high-range theme in Los Angeles and 

Oklahoma City and a mid-range theme in Bangor. In Los Angeles, participants 

addressed the issue of reliable speed and affordability. Participants expressed 

frustration with inconsistent bandwidth speed and a disparate range of ISP prices. 

In both Oklahoma City and Bangor, attendees expressed the need for broadband 

0 1 2 3

Right v. privelege

Healthcare

Non-use

Senior populations

Capacity building & investment

Smart phones

Language accessibility

Public access

Emergency services

Consumer education & protection

Collaboration

Quality of life

Social connectedness

Digital literacy

Economic & Workforce Dev

Accessibility

Adoption

Education

Availability & Affordabiity

Number of forums

High-range Mid-range Low-range
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 69 —

technology infrastructure in rural areas. Both cities recognized the difficulty in 

motivating ISP providers to expand to rural towns, too. Attendees from the 

Oklahoma City forum shared that there are more options available in rural areas 

now, but still the prices are too high for residents.

EDUCATION

Education was discussed in 10 of 12 discussion groups. Education was a highrange theme for both Oklahoma City and Bangor. In Oklahoma City, attendees 

spoke about the lack of digital resources in their public schools and recognized 

that some schools have no Internet access at all, forcing their students to rely on 

Internet access at libraries instead of their own schools. On the other hand, Maine 

offers computer and broadband access in all public schools. Instead, Bangor 

participants worried about the lack of home Internet access for students. They 

recognized that students are disadvantaged when they are unable to use online 

educational tools at home after school hours. Education was a low-range theme in 

Los Angeles. Similar to Oklahoma City, Los Angeles participants addressed the 

disparity in digital resources among the city’s public schools and the lack of 

broadband infrastructure in many older school buildings. Both Bangor and Los 

Angeles attendees hoped to broaden the principle to include lifelong learning and 

levels beyond K-12. 

ADOPTION

Adoption was discussed in 10 of 12 discussion groups. Adoption appeared as a 

mid-range theme in both Los Angeles and Oklahoma City and a high-range theme 

in Bangor. All three sites stressed the need to emphasize the benefits of online 

participation to non-users. In Los Angeles, participants saw a lack of motivation as 

a greater barrier to adoption than affordability. Attendees at the Oklahoma City 

forum believed that non-users experience a lot of intimidation, frustration, and 

stress. Bangor participants defined the lack relevant online content as a barrier to 

adoption.

DIGITAL LITERACY

Digital literacy was discussed in 10 of 12 discussion groups. Digital literacy 

emerged as a mid-range theme in Los Angeles and Oklahoma City and a highrange theme in Bangor. All sites expressed the need to teach information literacy 

of online content. Los Angeles participants worried about how to provide digital 

literacy training outside of the education system. In Oklahoma City, they stressed 

the need for one-on-one training. In Bangor, attendees spoke of a digital literacy 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 70 —

“continuum.” The continuum begins with basic literacy skills and builds digital 

literacy upon those skills. Digital literacy training caters to individuals’ needs and 

desires, too, instead of trying to get users to a uniform skill set.

ACCESSIBILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Accessibility for people with disabilities was discussed in 10 of 12 discussion 

groups. It was a mid-range theme in Los Angeles and Bangor and a high-range 

theme in Oklahoma City. Los Angeles participants agreed that universal design 

would benefit all technology users. Both Los Angeles and Bangor attendees 

hoped to broaden the Framework principle to include the aspect of aging and 

senior citizens. Participants from Bangor and Oklahoma City shared that their 

local public access venues have limited assistive technology available. In 

Oklahoma City, participants felt that technology changes too rapidly for people 

with disabilities to remain up-to-date with technology skills.

Mid-range themes – present in 6 -8 discussion groups

COLLABORATION

Collaboration was discussed in 8 of 12 discussion groups. It was a low-range 

theme in Los Angeles and Oklahoma City, but it appeared as a high-range theme 

at the Bangor forum. Both Los Angeles and Oklahoma City pushed for 

institutional partnerships among government, community-based organizations, 

and libraries. Oklahoma City participants struggled with the question, “Who is 

responsible for digital inclusion?” In Bangor, attendees overwhelming agreed that 

everyone, including government, libraries, schools, and technology providers, 

should share the work required to build the infrastructure to support digital 

inclusion.

ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Economic and workforce development was discussed in 7 of 12 discussion groups. 

It was a mid-range theme in Los Angeles and Bangor, and a low-range theme in 

Oklahoma City. Both Los Angeles and Oklahoma City recognized that digital 

literacy is imperative for even applying for jobs. Los Angeles attendees expressed 

that a lack of digital training and access made it difficult for residents to find 

employment. Both Bangor and Oklahoma City found digital inclusion essential to 

economic growth on a community level. Bangor participants believed rural 

economies to be stymied due to a lack of technology, whereas people in 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 71 —

Oklahoma City pushed for digital inclusion as a means to attract employers to 

their community. In Bangor, attendees recognized that older workers need digital 

training in order to remain competitive in their work field. 

QUALITY OF LIFE

Quality of life was discussed in 7 of 12 discussion groups. It appeared as a midrange theme in Oklahoma City and Bangor, and a low-range theme in Los 

Angeles. In Oklahoma, participants felt that digital inclusion improved the quality 

of life due to convenience and efficiency. They wanted to include “education” and 

“health” in the principle, too. Bangor participants believed that technology 

enriched the quality of life by providing a tool to maintain social connections and 

decrease isolation. In Los Angeles, participants found the principle too broad to 

properly define or articulate.

CONSUMER EDUCATION AND PROTECTION

Consumer education and protection was discussed in 7 of 12 discussion groups. It 

was a mid-range theme in Los Angeles but a low-range theme in both Oklahoma 

City and Bangor. Los Angeles attendees focused on the need to provide training 

on how to maintain equipment and software, so that people are able to upkeep 

broadband access at home. In Oklahoma City, participants were interested in 

consumer education about the many choices of technology equipment. All sites 

were concerned with security issues, especially when doing monetary transactions 

online, and privacy, like on social networking sites. 

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Emergency service was discussed in 7 of 12 discussion groups. It was a mid-range 

theme in Los Angeles and a low-range theme in Oklahoma City and Bangor. In 

Los Angeles, participants found it important to have digital access during 

emergencies in order to get live information and keep in contact with family and 

friends. In Oklahoma City, attendees shared experiences of using Twitter to stay 

informed during emergencies. Also, they appreciated that the public library 

served as a reliable public access site during emergencies. Bangor participants 

hoped to push their local emergency service agencies to take better advantage of 

their current and rich broadband infrastructure.

PUBLIC ACCESS

Public access was discussed by 7 of 12 discussion groups. It appeared as a midrange theme in Los Angeles and a low-range them in Oklahoma City and Bangor. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 72 —

In Los Angeles, they were concerned with the limited hours of public access 

venues. Oklahoma City participants felt they had limited public access options 

due to the rural geography, which makes a many public access centers too far 

away from home. Both Bangor and Los Angeles attendees wanted to push for 

more outreach in order to increase awareness and use of existing public access 

venues.

SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS

Social connectedness was discussed in 6 of 12 discussion groups. It emerged as a 

mid-range theme in Los Angeles and Oklahoma City, but did not arise in Bangor 

discussions. Both Los Angeles and Oklahoma City participants saw social 

connectedness as a major incentive for digital adoption. Oklahoma City attendees 

believed older non-users are motivated to adopt in order to maintain ties with 

family. 

Low-range themes – present at only one of the three forum sites

The following themes only appeared in one of the three forums, but were 

discussed separately by more than one of the discussion groups. Some reflect 

distinguishing characteristics of the community and therefore might be more 

broadly applicable to other communities with those characteristics (e.g. other 

rural, urban, or aging communities).

LANGUAGE ACCESSIBILITY 

This was a high-range theme in Los Angeles, which has a population with diverse 

language skills. Though not specifically addressed in the Proposed Framework 

principles, participants in the Los Angeles discussion groups emphasized the need 

to address diverse languages as a means to foster digital inclusion, particularly in 

the area of providing content. Participants advocated for more digital content 

available in multiple languages, and better facilitation of the use of languages 

other than English, especially for parents to communicate with the school system 

and patrons using public access technology. 

This focus on accessibility for people speaking languages other than English is 

reflective of the diversity and large immigrant population in Los Angeles, which 

may not be the case in other locations. However, it may be a theme that would 

emerge in other urban centers with large immigrant populations, and is therefore 

important to note in the overall evaluation of the framework.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 73 —

SMART PHONES 

Smart phones appeared as a mid-range theme in Los Angeles. Attendees 

discussed smart phones as a possible tool to promote digital inclusion. They 

recognized that a lot of families choose to own smart phones over home 

computers. Tablet computers, like the iPad, could be more commonly used tools 

for public access too. This focus in the Los Angeles community forum, and also 

other research that show the use of devices other than personal computers is 

growing, suggests that the Proposed Framework should be reviewed to ensure 

that it is device-agnostic where possible and/or that it needs to reflect the use of a 

variety of devices within certain goals.

CAPACITY BUILDING AND INVESTMENT 

Capacity building and investment was a mid-range theme in Bangor. There was 

broad acknowledgment by participants of the state’s current digital inclusion 

initiatives, as well as several pointed comments about capacity building in three of 

the discussion groups. While the participants felt that Maine was ahead of other 

U.S. states because of its investment in technology infrastructure (e.g. the threering binder project) they were forced to look outside of their borders for new ideas 

and service providers. Participants recognized that thoughtful investments had 

facilitated access to many rural areas in Maine, yet felt many people were still left 

behind. They began to consider where funding would come from to fill in these 

gaps. This theme may be reflective of an issue that may be encountered in other 

rural or geographically dispersed communities which needs to be more directly 

addressed in the Final Framework. 

SENIOR POPULATIONS AND GENERATIONAL GAPS

Senior populations and generational gaps emerged as a mid-range theme in 

Bangor. Participants recognized Maine’s senior population as a challenge to 

adoption and digital literacy. While some felt that seniors were simply unwilling to 

learn new technology, others disagreed. Many participants felt that technology 

education targeted to seniors was needed in Maine, and it was suggested that the 

younger and older generations be brought together for teaching and learning 

experiences. This theme was somewhat distinct from the higher level theme in 

which some of the discussion groups identified aging and diminishing capabilities 

as an aspect of the accommodation of people with disabilities. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 74 —

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT 

Civic engagement was a low-range theme in Los Angeles. Participants supported 

use of digital technologies as a means to connect people and government 

institutions. One woman shared that she wanted to connect to more people in her 

own neighborhood. Another woman spoke of her daughter’s involvement in the 

Libyan revolution and how her daughter uses digital technology to connect her 

work with people all over the world. Civic engagement, in Los Angeles, was seen 

as distinct from eGovernment and may reflect the need to better distinguish the 

two aspects of this targeted principle area in the Final Framework.

NON-USE 

Non-use of digital technologies was a low-range theme in Los Angeles. As 

touched on in the adoption discussions, participants supported digital inclusion, 

but still supported people who choose to be non-adopters. They felt that digital 

resources should augment current options, not replace them. This theme may 

have also been indirectly reflected in other discussion groups and may reflect a 

need to take into account that for some, digital inclusion is not a desired, possible, 

or perhaps even necessary, condition and that it may be necessary to continue to 

accommodate these individuals, especially in eGovernment activities.

HEALTH CARE 

Health care appeared as a low-range theme in Bangor. Participants were worried 

about the lack of technology infrastructure in health care facilities. They 

wondered if the main barrier to availability and access was policy and not cost or 

relevance. It was noted that mental health information, both about and for 

patients, is walled off from other health information. Participants felt that health 

care was one sector where government needed to play a driving role in digital 

inclusion, mostly because of its role in creating and enforcing regulatory 

restrictions which may affect using technology in health care. For example, HIPPA 

may create barriers to fully utilizing online medical records to improve access to 

health care information for consumers.

RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE? 

Participants in two Oklahoma City focus groups wondered whether or not 

Internet access should be considered a right or a privilege. One person agreed that 

the Internet is a necessity for some people, but perhaps not for all people. 

Another person believed Internet access supports freedom of speech. This 

difference in perception led into discussions about who is responsible for enacting 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 75 —

changes that would lead to greater digital inclusiveness. Many of the participants 

expressed ambivalence as to whether access to technology is an individual or 

group responsibility. This was a marked difference in attitude from the other 

locations, and in particular from Los Angeles. It may reflect a difference in the 

political orientation of the locations, particularly the common philosophy of the 

role of government. Since this political philosophy and questions about the role of 

government are not uncommon in many regions of the country, the Final 

Framework probably needs to be sensitive to, and prepared to answer, such 

attitudes by clarifying that its intent is to coordinate collaborative action within a 

community, not provoke a mandate of government intervention. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 76 —

Appendix 6. Overall analysis of 

the Leadership Forums

Participants in the leadership forums were given the opportunity to discuss any 

aspect of the framework. Overall, leaders in all of the forums affirmed that the 

framework was helpful in identifying issues of digital inclusion and thought that a 

national framework based on leading thought and practices would be valuable to 

individual communities. 

• The framework was described as a useful and helpful tool to shape 

discussions, kick start digital inclusion efforts, establish guidelines, and 

set policy. The potential of the framework to engage and assist rural 

communities was also underlined. 

• A concern raised in all three leadership forums was the usability of the 

framework in communicating with key stakeholders and local 

government leaders. The forum participants emphasized the need to 

clearly outline the relevance and benefits of information and digital 

technologies in order to promote the wider and greater adoption of 

digital technology by residents. 

• The promotion of wider access and greater training in support of 

advances in eGovernment was another common theme in all three 

forums. Participants noted that access is not universal and services are 

not accessible to all. Training is needs to be provided to local government 

staff and residents in order to successfully implement, oversee, and 

complete eGovernment services. The economic realities of many local 

governments and non-profits are a barrier to adequate training. 

Implementation 

Clearly explaining the benefits of the digital inclusion through the framework was 

a challenge identified in all three leadership forums. The leaders stressed the need 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 77 —

to communicate the benefit of digital inclusion in a way that is meaningful for all 

groups and outline a path to digital inclusion. Training and marketing materials 

need to simplify the framework for the different audiences that may use it. 

General feedback on implementation was consistent across the three leadership 

forums and revolved around the need for the framework to address the following:

• Specific needs and circumstances in an individual community;

• The ability to dynamic and adaptable to the ever-changing nature of 

technology;

• Defined incentives to participate in implementation;

• The importance of information sharing across sectors;

• Recognition that certain facets of the framework, like infrastructure, are 

beyond a community’s direct control; and

• The impact, both positive and negative, results could play in funding.

Specific Implementation Options

A suite of implementation options was presented at the leadership forums. 

• Self-assessment: Recognizes self-assessed achievement. Example 

outlined: National Wildlife Foundation.

• Guidelines: Self-assessment that establishes a basic level of competence 

based on benchmarks. Examples outlined: Human Rights Campaign All 

Children-All Families and ILO Mainstreaming Employment and Decent 

Work.

• Certification: Self-assessment, outside assessment and recommendations, 

and a commitment to self-defined tactical activities. Example discussed: 

Audubon Sustainable Communities Program.

• Accreditation: Self-assessment, outside assessment (third party) and 

recommendations, compliance to prescriptive standards, and a 

commitment to self-defined tactical activities. Example discussed: New 

England Association of Schools and Colleges.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 78 —

• Report card: Report card that ranks participants and is based on reliable, 

comprehensive, and comparable statistical data. Example discussed: 

Humanities Indicators Project.

Throughout the leadership forums, self-assessment emerged as the most viable 

implementation option. There appeared to be no support for a rigorous 

accreditation program or other approach that would be seen as expensive and/or 

complicated. The monetary cost and staff time typically required for such 

processes were seen as unrealistic commitments for digital inclusion efforts. It 

was also noted that the value of the accreditation was largely determined by the 

awarding agency/organization/entity. Allocating resources to staff training rather 

than the accreditation process was articulated as an option that would provide 

longer term benefits to the community. 

The feedback was mixed, however, on the need for a recognition program for 

communities who implemented the framework. Participants did think that 

collecting and sharing effective practices and stories would be helpful in 

demonstrating the benefits of digital inclusion and value proposition of 

participation. 

Forum participants thought that a national score card or index ranking program 

could be potentially helpful, but were concerned about the validity of the data and 

how the ranking might be used in negative ways. 

In summary, the most important feedback on implementation was the 

importance of effective marketing materials and the development of tools that 

can be self-administered at relatively low cost.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 79 —

Appendix 7. Online survey 

In order to gather additional feedback about the digital inclusion framework, the 

IMLS posted an online survey and distributed a press release to the Digital 

Inclusion Working Group, the Digital Inclusion Network, participants in the 

community and leadership forums, and other organizations that have previously 

expressed an interest in the Building Digitally Inclusive Communities initiative. 

ICMA and the UW team also distributed invitations to their constituents.

The survey contained questions about the Building Digitally Inclusive Communities 

materials, as well as attitudinal questions about whether the framework will 

support digital inclusion activities. An open-ended question was also included to 

solicit suggestions for other improvements to the digital inclusion effort. The 

survey was approved by the Office of Management and Budget under a Generic 

Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. 

Survey Results 

A total of 218 individual responded to the online survey. The majority of 

respondents reported living in a city or suburban area, while 27% reside in a rural 

area or remote town. 42% of respondents work for a public or school library, 35% 

work for a government agency, 7% work for a K-20 educational institution, 5% 

work for a nonprofit or community-based organization, and 2% work in the 

private sector. 6% were employed in another capacity including in an academic 

library, as students, or as volunteers. An additional 3% said they had a personal 

interest in digital inclusion. 

In a forced choice exercise, respondents were asked to choose the three most 

important digital inclusion principles to them personally (Figure 3). The 

foundational principles of availability & affordability and public access were 

selected most frequently, followed by the targeted principle of education. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 80 —

Figure 3 Ranking of Framework principles in web survey 

Respondents were asked a series of specific questions about the Framework for 

Digitally Inclusive Communities and the materials available to support digital 

inclusion activities. 72% of respondents strongly or slightly agreed that the 

framework would support collaboration between individuals, businesses, 

community-based organizations, and government in their communities. Further, 

70% of respondents said their community would be likely to use some of the 

principles and goals outlined in the Framework for Digitally Inclusive Communities 

to improve digital inclusion

Finally, each respondent was asked to select from a list of predetermined 

publications or tools to indicate which would helpful to their community when 

implementing a digital inclusion strategy. Of these, web-based training, a press 

kit, brochures, and a community forum were selected most (Figure 4). Of the 22 

respondents who selected “Other” and provided written recommendations, many 

indicated that social media outlets such as Facebook could be used to distribute 

information about digital inclusion. Additional suggestions included best practice 

documents and creating an online community of practice for digital inclusion. 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Quality of life

Health care

Public safety & emergency services 

Civic engagement 

Economic & workforce development

Education

Consumer education & protection

Adoption & digital literacy

Accessibility for people with ...

Public access

Availability & affordability

Number of comments

Principles
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 81 —

Figure 4 Perceptions of helpfulness of publications and tools in implementing 

a digital inclusion strategy

Analysis of open-ended comments

Content analysis of comments left by respondents revealed several themes:

• Materials and training are needed to support digital inclusion and the 

adoption of the principles and goals. More specific steps towards 

implementation need to be included in support materials for Framework 

implementation. Specific suggestions included:

o Include examples of successful implementation in materials

o Offer open-source or online tools for support

o ‘Getting Started’ guide is not as helpful or practical as it could be

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Other

Web site 

Training (web-based)

Training (in-person) 

Survey

Research report 

Press kit 

Online tutorial 

E-newsletter

Consulting

Community forum

Brochure

Blog

Responses

Publications and Tools
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 82 —

o Add a section about myths and misinformation 

o Collaboration seems very easy the way the framework lays it out, 

but it is not; the framework should be more specific about what 

a “community” means and who is accountable

o Offer training to librarians or periodic events to support 

implementation

o Offer presentations and visuals and facilitator guides for 

implementation

o Use social media

• The structure and content of framework could be improved. Suggestions 

for improvement included:

o Clarify the difference between foundational and targeted 

principles 

o Emphasize affordability, or collapse affordability & availability

o Change accessibility language to make it less disability-centric

o Scale back the model to be more focused

o Add more about user privacy and empowerment

o Addressing the cultural reasons people have not adopted 

technology

o Add creating and publishing content as a goal

• The relevance and future efficacy of the Framework is not clear, nor is it 

clear who is responsible for implementing digital inclusion activities. 

Specifically:

o Funding is not addressed in Framework and it’s not clear 

whether it is a call for commitment of public funds

o The private sector is not figured prominently enough in the 

conversation
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 83 —

o IMLS needs to take a greater leadership role in effort and seek 

greater visibility for the effort

o The Framework needs coordinated support at the state 

government level

o Libraries may have a difficult time supporting the Framework as 

they are already strained
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 84 —

References

Federal Communication Commission (FCC). (2010). Connecting America: The 

National Broadband Plan. Washington DC: Federal Communications 

Commission. Retrieved from http://download.broadband.gov/plan/ 

national-broadband-plan.pdf

Mace, R., Hardie, G, Place, J. (1991). Accessible environments: Toward universal 

design. In W.E. Preiser, JC. Vischer, & E.T. White (Eds.), Design 

Intervention: Toward a More Humane Architecture. New York, NY: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 85 —

Bibliography

This bibliography is divided into four topic areas: assessment models; indicator 

systems; local and international policy initiatives on digital inclusion; and reasons 

for non-adoption. 

Assessment models

American Library Association. (2003) Principles for the networked world.

Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oitp/ 

publications/issuebriefs/principles/principles.pdf

Beetham, D., Carvalho, E., Landham, T., and Weir, S. (2008). Assessing the quality 

of democracy. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy 

and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.dpwg-lgd.org/cms/ 

upload/pdf/quality_of_democracy_a_practical_guide_idea.pdf

Bryne Potter, A. (2006). Zones of silence: A framework beyond the digital divide. 

First Monday, 11(5).

Grim, T. (2008). Foresight maturity model [unpublished slide presentation]. 

Retrieved from http://www.foresightmaturitymodel.com

Harvey, M. (n.d.). Discussion of the Environmental Literacy Council Framework. 

Retrieved from http://www.enviroliteracy.org/ article.php/449.html

Human Rights Campaign Foundation, All Children-All Families Initiative. (2010). 

Promising practices in adoption and foster care: A comprehensive guide to 

policies and practices that welcome, affirm and support lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender foster and adoptive parents (3rd ed.). 

Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/documents/ 

HRC_Foundation_Promising_Practices_Guide_3rd_Edition_Color.pdf

Institute of Museum and Library Services. (n.d.). Museums, libraries, and 21st

century skills self-assessment tool. Retrieved from 

http://imls21stcenturyskills.org/
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 86 —

National Information Standards Organization. (2007). A framework of guidance for 

building good digital collections (3rd ed.). Retrieved from 

http://framework.niso.org/

U.S. Green Building Council. (n.d.). LEED certification rating system. Retrieved 

from http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=51

_______. (n.d.). LEED rating system development. Retrieved from 

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2360

Wynne, M. E., & Cooper, L. F. (2007). Power Up: The campaign for digital inclusion 

— Digital inclusion imperatives offer municipalities new social and economic 

opportunities. Bellingham WA: Microsoft Corporation.

Wynne, M. E., Perry, K. A., Cooper, L.F. (2008). Innovating for inclusion: A digital 

inclusion guide for those leading the way. Bellingham, WA: Microsoft 

Corporation.

Indicator systems

Abraham, K. (2006). Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey: Who is 

missing from the data and How much does it matter? Public Opinion 

Quarterly, 70(5): 676–703.

ACT Rochester. (n.d.). ACT Rochester: Community Indicators for the Greater 

Rochester Area. Retrieved from http://actrochester.org/

Advancing Our Community. (n.d.). Sitka community indicators. Retrieved from 

http://sitkaaoc.org/data/indicators.html

Alliance for Building Community. (n.d.). Community building resources. Retrieved 

from http://www.allianceforbuildingcommunity.org/

Aloha United Way. (2005). Quality of life in Hawaii. Honolulu HI: University of 

Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, 

Center on the Family. Retrieved from http://uhfamily.hawaii.edu/ 

publications/publications_archive.asp
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 87 —

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). 2010 Kids Count data book: State profiles of 

child well-being. Retrieved from http://datacenter.kidscount.org/ 

DataBook/2010/Default.aspx

Applied Survey Research. (2010). Santa Cruz County Community Assessment 

Project Year 16, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.santacruzcountycap.org/

pdfs/CAP%2016/Complete%20CAP%20Report%20-%20Year%2016.pdf

Asheville Hub. (n.d.). Asheville Hub. Retrieved from http://www.ashevillehub.com/

Austin City Connection. (n.d.). Austin sustainable communities initiative. Retrieved 

from http://www.norfolk.gov/mayor/trees/documents/green%20team/ 

research%20and%20examples/city%20of%20austin%20-%20sustainable 

%20communities%20initiative.htm

Australian Unity. (2010). Australian unity wellbeing index. Retrieved from 

http://www.australianunitycorporate.com.au/community/auwi/Pages/ 

default.aspx

Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance and Jacob France Institute. (n.d.). 

Neighborhood data. Retrieved from http://www.bniajfi.org/

Boone County. (2009). Boone County indicators. Retrieved from 

http://booneindicators.org/

Boston Foundation, The. The Boston indicators project. Retrieved from 

http://www.bostonindicators.org/Indicators2008/

Burlington Legacy Project. (2000). Burlington legacy action plan. Burlington, VT: 

City of Burlington.

Calgary Foundation, The. (2009). Calgary’s vital signs: 2009 citizens’ report card. 

Retrieved from http://www.thecalgaryfoundation.org/documents/ 

09VitalSignsFinal_001.pdf

Canadian Council on Learning. (2010). Composite learning index. Retrieved from

http://www.cli-ica.ca/en.aspx

Canmore Community Monitoring Program. (2008). Community indicators. 

Biosphere Institute of the Bow Valley. Retrieved from 

http://www.biosphereinstitute.org/?q=r-com-indicators
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 88 —

Carver County. (2006). Quality of life indicators. Chaska, MN: Carver County Public 

Health Division, Land and Water Services Division, and Land 

Management Department.

Center for Houston’s Future. (2009). Counting on quality of place: Air quality, parks 

& trails, trees. Houston, TX.

Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project. (2009). 2009 indicators report. 

Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.centex-indicators.org/

Chamard, S., & Parker, K. (2009). The Matanuska-Susitna Borough community 

survey, 2009: A sourcebook of community attitudes. Anchorage, AK: 

Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage.

Champlain Initiative. (n.d.). The changing face of Chittenden County: A multi-sector 

partnership embracing our changing community. Retrieved from 

http://www.champlaininitiative.com/home

Chapin Hall. (n.d.). Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Retrieved from 

http://www.chapinhall.org/

Chester County Planning Commission. (2010). Chester County landscapes progress 

report 2010, landscape index. Chester County, PA.

Children First for Oregon. (2009). 2009 status of Oregon’s children: Keeping 

children safe – Improving Oregon’s child welfare system. Portland, OR.

Children’s Services Council of Broward County. (n.d.). Children’s strategic plan.

Lauderhill, FL. Retrieved from http://www2.cscbroward.org/ 

Strategic.aspx

Children’s Workforce Development Council. (2010). The common assessment 

framework for children and young people: A guide for managers. Leeds, 

UK. Retrieved from http://publications.cwdcouncil.org.uk/ 

product_info.php?products_id=199

City of Baltimore. (n.d.). Baltimore CitiStat. Retrieved from http://www. 

baltimorecity.gov/ Government/AgenciesDepartments/ CitiStat.aspx

City of Calgary. (2006). 2006 state of the environment report (3rd ed.). Calgary, 

Canada.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 89 —

City of Calgary. (2008). Towards a sustainable city: The case for change. Calgary, 

Canada.

City of Calgary. (2009). Plan it Calgary. Retrieved from 

http://www.calgary.ca/planit

City of Greensboro. (n.d.). GreensbOrometer. Retrieved from 

http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/departments/hcd/planning/ 

GreensbOrometer.htm

City of Minneapolis. (n.d.). Results Minneapolis. Retrieved from 

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/results/

City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Development. (2008). Sustainable 

Northampton: Comprehensive plan, January 2008. Northampton, MA.

City of Pasadena, Public Health Department. (2002). Quality of life index: 2002 

index. Pasadena, CA.

City of Rocklin. (2010). Community report card 2009–2010. Rocklin, CA.

City of Santa Monica. (2010). Sustainable Santa Monica: Sustainable city report

card 2010. Retrieved at http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/ 

Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/Sustainable_City_Report_C

ard_2010.pdf

City of Surrey. (2008). Sustainability charter: A commitment to sustainability.

Surrey, British Columbia.

City of Vancouver. (n.d.). Strategic plan/strategic commitments. Retrieved from 

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/StrategicPlan.asp?year=2008&itemID

=52317

City of Winnepeg. (n.d.). Peg. Retrieved from http://www.mypeg.ca/

Communities Count. (n.d.). Social and health indicators across King County.

Retrieved from http://www.communitiescount.org/index.php

Community Action Network. (n.d.). Community Action Network. Retrieved from 

http://www.caction.org/
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 90 —

Community Agenda. (2010). Community agenda snapshot: Volusia and Flagler 

counties, June 2010. Retrieved from http://www.agendavf.org/ 

2010%20Snapshot%20FINAL.pdf

Community Foundation of Ottawa. (2010). Ottawa’s vital signs: The city’s annual 

checkup. Ottawa, Canada.

Community Foundation, The. (2009). Boulder County trends report 2009. Retrieved 

from http://www.commfound.org/nonprof/ civicforum/index.php

Community Indicators Consortium. (n.d.). Indicators projects. Retrieved from 

http://www.communityindicators.net/efforts

Community Indicators Initiative of Spokane. (n.d.). Spokane community indicators. 

Retrieved from http://www.communityindicators.ewu.edu/

Community Indicators Victoria. (n.d.). Community indicators: Victoria wellbeing 

reports. Retrieved from http://www.communityindicators.net.au/ 

wellbeing_reports

Community Quality Improvement. (2009). Beyond compassion: Measuring the 

external costs of poverty in Sault Ste. Marie. Sault Ste. Marie, Canada: 

Social Services Administration Board.

Community Resources Council. (n.d.). MAACLink. Retrieved from 

http://www.crcnet.org/

Community Vision. (2010). Osceola County report card: Focusing on community 

connections (Vol. 7). Retrieved from http://www.communityvision.org/ 

Documents/ReportCard%202010.pdf

Coordinating Council, The. (2009). Calhoun County community report card.

Retrieved from http://www.tcccalhoun.org/CRC/ 

2009%20Community%20Report%20Card%20and%20Trees.pdf

Costa, S., Palaniappan, M., Wong, A.K., Hays, J., Landeiro, C., & Rongerude, J. 

(2002). Neighborhood knowledge for change: The West Oakland 

environmental indicators project. Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute for Studies 

in Development, Environment, and Security.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 91 —

Council on Virginia’s Future. (2010). The Virginia report. Retrieved from 

http://www.future.virginia.gov/docs/VirginiaReport/2010_Virginia_%20R

eport(Web)_compressed.pdf

County of Summit. (2009). Summit 2010 priority indicators progress report.

Retrieved from http://www.healthysummit.org/qol/pdf/ 

final%20draft%202009%20data%20tracking%20report%200216.pdf

Dallas Foundation and Foundation for Community Empowerment. (n.d.) Dallas 

indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dallasindicators.com/

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. (n.d.). Regional indicators.

Retrieved from http://www.dvrpc.org/LongRangePlan/ 

RegionalIndicators/

Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. (2010). Measuring progress: 

Sustainable development indicators 2010. London, United Kingdom.

Department of Community Affairs. (n.d.). Georgia community indicators. Retrieved 

from http://www.dca.state.ga.us/commind/default.asp

Department of Employment and Economic Development. (n.d.). Minnesota 3D 

web mapping. Retrieved from http://map.deed.state.mn.us/m3d/

Eastern Washington University, Institute for Public Policy and Economic Analysis. 

(n.d.). Northeast Washington trends. Retrieved from 

http://www.northeastwashingtontrends.ewu.edu/hiSpeed/index.cfm

Eastern Washington University. (n.d.). Chelan Douglas trends. Spokane, WA: 

Eastern Washington University Institute for Public Policy and Economic 

Analysis & the Center for Digital Media Design and Development. 

Retrieved from http://www.chelandouglastrends.org/

Eastern Washington University. (n.d.). Grant County trends. Retrieved from 

http://www.grantcountytrends.ewu.edu/

Environment Canada. (n.d.). Measuring sustainability: Canadian environmental 

sustainability indicators. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateursindicators/

Equinox Center. (2010). The San Diego regional quality of life dashboard. San 

Diego, CA.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 92 —

Family League of Baltimore City. (2007). How are we doing? Indicator data on child 

and family well being. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore City Data Collaborative.

Fond du Lac Area United Way. (2007). 2007 local indicators for excellence: L.I.F.E. in 

Fond du Lac County. Fond du Lac, WI.

Foundation of Greater Montreal. (2010). Greater Montreal’s vital signs: Our region’s 

annual check-up. Montreal, Canada.

Franklin Community Health Network. (n.d.). Healthy community coalition.

Retrieved from http://www.fchn.org/hcc

Fransman, M. (2006). Global broadband battles: Why the U.S. and Europe lag while 

Asia leads. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Fraser Basin Council. (2010). Working together in the lower mainland: Sustainability 

snapshot 2010. A report of the Fraser Basin Council for organizations and 

residents of: Fraser Valley, Metro Vancouver, Squamish-Lillooet.

Vancouver, Canada.

Government of Alberta. (2010). Measuring up: Progress report on the Government 

of Alberta business plan. Edmonton, Canada.

Great Valley Center. (n.d.). Indicators. Retrieved from 

http://www.greatvalley.org/indicators/

Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. (2010). The New Orleans index at 

five: Measuring greater New Orleans’ progress toward prosperity. New 

Orleans, LA: Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program & Greater New 

Orleans Community Data Center.

Hennepin County Minnesota. (2006). Community indicators report. Retrieved from 

http://www.co.hennepin.mn.us/portal/site/HennepinUS/ 

menuitem.b1ab75471750e40fa01dfb47ccf06498/?vgnextoid=4e32d18feb

5b4210VgnVCM10000049114689RCRD

Hillsborough County. (n.d.). Hillsborough community atlas. Retrieved from 

http://www.hillsborough.communityatlas.usf.edu/

Howard County Department of Citizen Services. (2009). People helping people: 

Annual report 2009. Retrieved from http://www.howardcountymd.gov/ 

CitizenServices/CSDocs/dcsar9.pdf
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 93 —

Human Services Council, The. (2010). Community indicators report. Norwalk, CT.

ICMA. (n.d.). Center for sustainable communities. Retrieved from 

http://icma.org/en/icma/priorities/sustainable_communities

_______. (n.d.). ICMA center for performance measurement. Retrieved from 

http://icma.org/en/Page/107/ICMA_Center_for_Performance_Measurem

ent

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) & the Polis Center. 

(n.d.). The SAVI Community Information System. Retrieved from 

http://www.savi.org

Indicators Progress Commission. (2008). Albuquerque progress report 2008.

Albuquerque, NM: City of Albuquerque. Retrieved from 

http://www.cabq.gov/progress/ documents/complete_2008_apr.pdf

Information Hub of South Central Connecticut, The. (n.d.). Data haven. Retrieved 

from http://www.ctdatahaven.org/

International Monetary Fund. (2003). Data quality assessment framework (DQAF) 

for external debt statistics. Retrieved from http://dsbb.imf.org/vgn/ 

images/pdfs/dqaf_exd_statistics.pdf

Jacksonville Community Council Inc. (2009). Quality of life progress report for 

Jacksonville and Northeast Florida (25th ed.). Retrieved from 

http://www.jcci.org/jcciwebsite/documents/09%20QOL%20Summary%2

0Document.pdf

Kaua’i Planning & Action Alliance. (2010). Measuring what matters for Kaua’i –

Community indicators report 2008. Retrieved from 

http://www.kauainetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ 

indicatorsfinalreport2008.pdf

Kazanjian, A., and C. J. Green. (2002). Beyond effectiveness: The evaluation of 

information systems using a comprehensive health technology 

assessment framework. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 32(3): 165–

177.

Kentucky Youth Advocates. (n.d.). 2010 Kentucky kids count county data book. 

Retrieved from http://www.kyyouth.org/documents/kya_databook10.pdf
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 94 —

Kids County North Dakota. (2010). North Dakota kids count 2010 fact book: State, 

regional, and county profiles of child well-being in North Dakota. Retrieved 

from http://www.ndkidscount.org/factbook/ 

completefactbook/NDKCFactBook_2010.pdf

Lancaster County Planning Commission. (n.d.). Long-range planning. Retrieved 

from http://www.lancastercountypa.gov/planning/cwp/browse.asp?A=2

Larimer County Department of Human Services. (n.d.). Compass of Larimer 

County. Retrieved from http://www.co.larimer.co.us/compass/

Leadership Alliance for a Vital Community. (n.d.). A community indicators project 

for Herkimer and Oneida Counties. Retrieved from 

http://www.communityprofiles.org/herkimeroneida/

League for Innovation in the Community College. (2004). An assessment 

framework for the community college: Measuring student learning and 

achievement as a means of demonstrating institutional effectiveness.

Retrieved from www.league.org/publication/whitepapers/files/0804.pdf

Leibniz Institute for Social Sciences. (n.d.). German system of social indicators.

Retrieved from http://www.gesis.org/en/services/data/socialindicators/the-german-system-of-social-indicators/

Lucille Packard Foundation. (n.d.). Kidsdata. Retrieved from 

http://www.kidsdata.org/

Maine Center for Economic Policy. (2009). Ideas for shared prosperity. Retrieved 

from http://www.mecep.org/

Maine Economic Growth Council. (2010). Measures of growth in focus. Retrieved 

from http://www.maine.com/editions/2006-02-15/images/ 

20060202000100C.pdf

Maricopa County, Office of Management and Budget, Managing for Results. 

(2006). Maricopa County annual report of community indicators, 2006. 

Retrieved from http://www.maricopa.gov/mfr/pdf/Com_Indicators.pdf 

Massarand, M. G. (2010). 2010 Analysis of impediments to fair housing and 

community resources in Idaho: An assessment of perceptions across 

multiple stakeholder groups. Boise, ID: Interaction Consulting 

International, Inc. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 95 —

Mid-American Regional Council. (2001). Metro outlook: Measuring the progress of 

Metropolitan Kansas City. Retrieved from http://www.marc.org/ 

Metro%20Outlook.pdf

Ministry for the Environment. (2008). Environment New Zealand 2007. Retrieved 

from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07-dec07/

Minnesota Compass. (n.d.). Minnesota compass. Retrieved from 

http://www.mncompass.org/

Minnesota Department of Administration. (2002). Minnesota milestones: Measures 

that matter. Retrieved from http://www.mnplan.state. mn.us/mm/

Missoula County. (n.d.). Missoula measures. Retrieved from 

http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/measures/

Morrison Institute for Public Policy. (n.d.). Arizona indicators. Retrieved from 

http://arizonaindicators.org/

Murley, J. F. (2008). Preserving paradise: SoFlo’s call to action. Boca Raton, FL: 

Florida Atlantic University, Center for Urban & Environmental Solutions. 

Murphey, D. (2006). Vermont well-being: A social indicators sourcebook.

Waterbury, VT: Vermont Agency of Human Services, Planning Division.

National Association of Counties. (2010). 2010 county sustainability strategies.

Retrieved from http://www.naco.org/newsroom/latest/Documents/ 

2010%20Sustainability%20Strategies%20Publication.pdf

National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals. (2003). 

Smart growth for clean water: Helping communities address the water 

quality impacts of sprawl. Retrieved from http://www.nalgep.org/ 

publications/PublicationsDetail.cfm?LinkAdvID=42157

New York State Council on Children and Families. (2005). New York State 

touchstones, kids count data book. Retrieved from 

http://www.ccf.state.ny.us/Initiatives/Archive/KC/ 

2009TouchstonesDB.pdf

New Yorkers for Parks. (2009). New Yorkers for parks 2009 annual report.

Retrieved from http://www.ny4p.org/index.php
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 96 —

North Yorkshire County Council. (n.d.). Neighbourhood profiles. Retrieved from 

http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=9701

Orange County. (2010). Orange County 2010 community indicators. Retrieved from 

http://www.ocgov.com/vgnfiles/ocgov/CEO/Docs/ 

2010%20Community%20Indicators.pdf

Oregon Progress Board. (2009). Highlights: 2009 benchmark report to the people of 

Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/docs/ 

2009Report/2009_Benchmark_Highlights.pdf

Oregon State University. (n.d.). Rural studies program. Retrieved from 

http://ruralstudies.oregonstate.edu/

Pikes Peak United Way. (2010). 2010 quality of life report. Retrieved from 

http://pikespeakqualityoflife.org/2010/09/19/2010-pikes-peak-quality-oflife-indicators-report-now-available/

Pinellas County. (n.d.). Pinellea County community indicators. Retrieved from 

http://www.pinellasindicators.org/

Piton Foundation, The. (n.d.). Community facts. Retrieved from 

http://www.piton.org/CommunityFacts.

Planning Council, The. (2008). 2008 Regional report card, South Hampton Roads, 

VA. Retrieved from http://www.theplanningcouncil.org/ 

ReportCard08.pdf

Prosperity Pensacola. (2006). Escambia County indicator report. Retrieved from 

http://uwf.edu/haas/pdfFiles/Indicator_Report_revised.pdf 

Province of Manitoba. (2009). Provincial sustainability report for Manitoba.

Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pdf/ 

sustainabilty_report_2009.pdf

Public Policy Institute of Marion County. (2005). 2005 quality of life progress report. 

Marion County, FL.

Puget Sound Partnership. (n.d.). Puget Sound dashboard of ecosystem indicators.

Retrieved from http://www.psp.wa.gov/pm_dashboard.php

Rauch Foundation. (n.d.). Long Island index. Retrieved from 

http://www.longislandindex.org/
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 97 —

Rochdale Borough Council. (2010). Empowering local communities to make better 

decisions: Case study. Retrieved from http://www.instantatlas.com/ 

downloads/Rochdale_Council_CaseStudy.pdf

Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne. (n.d.). Australian early development index: 

Building better communities for children. Retrieved from 

http://maps.aedi.org.au/

San Antonio Metropolitan Health District. (n.d.). Metro health: San Antonio’s 

public health team. http://www.sanantonio.gov/health/healthprofilesmain.html 

San Joaquin County. (2008). Healthier San Joaquin County community assessment. 

Retrieved from http://www.healthiersanjoaquin.org/

Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence. (n.d.). SCOPE: Connecting and 

inspiring citizens to create a better community. Retrieved from 

http://www.scopexcel.org/default.asp

Security Privacy and Critical Infrastructure Committee. (2000). Federal information 

technology security assessment framework. Gaithersburg, MD: National 

Institute of Standards and Technology.

Sightline Institute. (n.d.). Cascadia scorecard. Retrieved from 

http://scorecard.sightline.org/

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. (2005). New Hampshire’s 

changing landscape. Retrieved from http://www.forestsociety.org/ 

research/research-projects.asp

South Australia Strategic Plan. (n.d.). Plan for the best. Retrieved from 

http://www.saplan.org.au/

Southern California Association of Governments. (2007). The state of the region 

2007: Measuring regional progress. Retrieved from 

http://www.scag.ca.gov/sotr/index.htm

Southern Illinois Healthcare. (n.d.). Healthy communities coalition. Retrieved from 

http://www.sih.net/home.nsf/content/ healthycommunitiescoalition3
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 98 —

Spartanburg County Foundation, The. (2005). Community indicators VI: Strategic 

Spartanburg. Retrieved from http://www.strategicspartanburg.org/ 

documents.php

State of Connecticut. (2009). Connecticut commission on children, 2008–2009 

annual report. Retrieved from www.cga.ct.gov/coc/PDFs/annualreports/ 

2009_annual_report.pdf

State of Guernsey Policy Council. (2009). Sustainable Guernsey: Monitoring fiscal 

and economic, social, and environmental trends. Retrieved from 

http://www.gov.gg/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/ 

?asset_id=13564678

State of Iowa. (n.d.). Results Iowa: Accountability for Iowa. Retrieved from 

http://www.resultsiowa.org/index.html

Sudbury Community Foundation. (2010). Greater Sudbury’s vital signs 2010.

Retrieved from http://vitalsignscanada.ca/local/sudbury/pdf/ 

Sudbury_VitalSigns%20Report_2010.pdf

Sustainability Indicators. (n.d.). Sustainability indicators for Sunnybank, Brisbane, 

Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http:// www.sunnybank.info

Sustain Cape Cod. (n.d.). Indicators. Retrieved from 

http://www.sustaincapecod.org/indicators.

Sustainable Cincinnati. (2005). Regional indicators measuring the economic, 

environmental, and social health of the Tri-State Metropolitan area.

Retrieved from http://www.sustainablecincinnati.org/sc_2005.pdf

Sustainable Pittsburgh. (2004). Southwestern Pennsylvania regional indicators 

report. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablepittsburgh.org/pdf/ 

2004Indicators.pdf

Sustainable San Mateo County. (2009). Indicators for a sustainable San Mateo 

County: Thirteenth annual report card. Retrieved from 

http://www.sustainablesanmateo.org/indicators-report/reports/2009-

indicators-report/

Sustainable Seattle. (n.d). Sustainable Seattle. Retrieved from 

http://sustainableseattle.org/
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 99 —

Temple University. (n.d.). Metropolitan Philadelphia indicators project. Retrieved 

from http://mpip.temple.edu/

Therivel, R., & Wood, G. (2004). Tools for strategic environmental assessment. In 

M. Schmidt, E. João & E. Albrecht (Eds.), Implementing Strategic 

Environmental Assessment (349–364). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. (2009). 2008–2009 annual report.

Retrieved from http://www.tjpdc.org/newsletter/ 

AnnualReport_08_09/index.shtm

Toronto Community Foundation. (2010). Toronto’s vital signs 2010, full report.

Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.tcf.ca/vitalinitiatives/ 

TVS10FullReport.pdf

Truckee Meadows Tomorrow. (n.d.). Quality of life indicators. Retrieved from 

http://www.truckeemeadowstomorrow.org/.

Tuolumne County. (n.d.). Tuolumne County profile: Community indicators project.

Retrieved from http://www.tuolumnecountyprofile.org/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Healthy people. Retrieved 

from http://www.healthpeople.gov

United Nations Development Programme (2010). Human development report 

2010: The real wealth of nations, pathways to human development. New 

York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 

United Way of Central Oklahoma. (2010). Oklahoma County vital signs. Retrieved 

from http://www.unitedwayokc.org/sites/default/files/ 

files/documents/Healthy_Citizens_Vital_Signs_-_Small.pdf

United Way of Marathon County. (2009). FOCUS 2009–2011, LIFE in Marathon 

County: Local indicators for excellence. Retrieved from 

http://www.co.marathon.wi.us/is/cad/pdf/LifeReportFull.pdf

United Way of Pierce County. (n.d.). Community indicators. Retrieved from 

http://indicators.uwpc.org/index2.html

United Way of the Greater Capital Region. (n.d.). Capital Region community profile.

Retrieved from http://www.communityprofiles.org/ 

capitalregion/index.php
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 100 —

University of Anchorage Alaska. (n.d.). Community indicators project at UAA.

Retrieved from http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/index.html

University of Buffalo. (n.d.). University at Buffalo Regional Institute. Buffalo, NY: 

University at Buffalo Law School. Retrieved from http://regionalinstitute.buffalo.edu/index.cfm

University of Idaho. (n.d.). Indicators Northwest. Retrieved from 

http://www.indicatorsnorthwest.org/

University of Pennsylvania, Department of City and Regional Planning. (2010). 

Connecting for global competitiveness: Florida’s super region. Retrieved 

from http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/ 

cfgcflsuperregion.pdf

University of Pittsburgh, Center for Social and Urban Research. (n.d.). Pittsburgh 

today: Key indicators for understanding our region. Retrieved from 

http://www.pittsburghtoday.org/home.html

University of South Carolina. (n.d.). South Carolina indicators project. Retrieved 

from http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/scip/

University of South Dakota. (2009). The 2009 South Dakota kids count factbook.

Retrieved from http://www.usd.edu/business/south-dakota-kidscount/upload/2009Factbook.pdf

Vancouver Foundation. (2010). Vital signs for Metro Vancouver. Retrieved from 

http://www.vancouverfoundationvitalsigns.ca/

Victoria Foundation. (2009). Victoria’s vital signs. Retrieved from 

http://intraspec.ca/vital_signs_2009.pdf

Vision for Children at Risk. (2009). Children of Metropolitan St.Louis: Report to the 

community. Retrieved from http://visionforchildren.org/aboutus/

publications

Washington County. (2009). 2009 Performance measures and indicators report.

Retrieved from http://www.co.washington.mn.us/_asset/znv7b5/ADM2010-WCPerfReportFINAL2009.pdf
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 101 —

Welborn Baptist Foundation. (2006). Leading community health indicators, 2006.

Retrieved from http://www.welbornfdn.org/2006%20Community%20 

Indicators%20Report.pdf

West Midlands Regional Observatory. (2010). State of the West Midlands 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.wmro.org/stateofthewestmidlands2010/

Whistler 2020 (2009). Whistler 2020: Moving toward a sustainable future. Retrieved 

from http://www.whistler2020.ca/whistler/site/homepage.acds? 

instanceid=1930792&context=1930501

World Bank. (2010). World development indicators. Retrieved from 

http://data.worldbank.org/

World Health Organization. (2008). Primary health care: Now more than ever.

Geneva, Switzerland.

Yampa Valley Partners. (n.d.). Community indicators. Retrieved from 

http://www.yampavalleypartners.com/community_indicators

YorkCounts. (2010). YorkCounts 2010 annual report. Retrieved from 

http://www.yorkcounts.org/YorkCounts2010.pdf

Local and international policy initiatives on digital 

inclusion

Al-Omari, A., & Al-Omari, H. (2006). e-Government readiness assessment model. 

Journal of Computer Science, 2(11): 841–845.

Americorps. (2008). Community Technology Empowerment Project. Retrieved 

from http://wip.technologypower.org/

Arzberger, P., Schroeder, P., Beaulieu, A., Bowker, G., Casey, K., Laaksonen, L., 

Moorman, D., Uhlir, P., & Wouters, P. (2010). An international 

framework to promote access to data. Science, 303(5665): 1777–1778.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for 

digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22: 269–278. Retrieved from 

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/relatedcontent/2006/October/rc_pare

ntID27342_thisID27365.pdf
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 102 —

Bush, N.E., Bowen, D.J., Wooldridge, J., Ludwig, A., Meischke, H., & Robbins, R. 

(2004). What do we mean by Internet access? A framework for health 

researchers. Preventing Chronic Disease, 1(4).

California Emerging Technology Fund. (2008). California ICT digital literacy 

assessment and curriculum framework. Retrieved from 

http://www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/California%20ICT%20Assessments%20

and%20Curriculum%20Framework.pdf

Chung, Y.H. (2002). Korean national policies to close the digital divide. Retrieved 

from unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/ 

UNPAN006369.pdf

City of Chicago. (n.d.). Digital excellence initiative. Retrieved from 

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doit/provdrs/dei.html

City of Minneapolis. (n.d.). Wireless Minneapolis. Retrieved from 

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/wirelessminneapolis/index.asp

City of Seattle. (2009). Information technology access and adoption in Seattle: 2009 

resident survey report. Seattle, WA.

Distaso, W., Lupi, P., & Manenti, F.M. (2006). Platform competition and 

broadband uptake: Theory and empirical evidence from the European 

Union. Information Economics and Policy, 18: 87–106.

European Commission. (2008). Digital literacy European Commission working paper 

and recommendations from digital literacy high-level expert group.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/ 

i2010/docs/digital_literacy/digital_literacy_review.pdf

Federal Communication Commission (FCC). (2010). Connecting America: The 

National Broadband Plan. Washington DC: Federal Communications 

Commission. Retrieved from http://download.broadband.gov/plan/ 

national-broadband-plan.pdf

Fransman, M. (2006). Global broadband battles: Why the U.S. and Europe lag while 

Asia leads. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Holland, P., Rajabifard, A., & Williamson, I. (2010). Towards an assessment 

framework for spatially enabled government. Paper presented at GSDI 12: 

Realising Spatially Enabled Societies, Singapore. 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 103 —

i2010 High Level Group. (2009). Benchmarking digital Europe 2011–2015: A 

conceptual framework. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ 

information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/benchmarking_

digital_europe_2011-2015.pdf 

Intelligent Community Forum. (n.d.). Community accelerator. Retrieved from 

https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Acc

elerator&category=Services

_______. (n.d.). Intelligent community indicators. Retrieved from 

https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/index.php?submenu=Research&s

rc=gendocs&ref=Research_Intelligent_Community_Indicators&category

=Research

Kent, D., & McClure, D.P. (2009). Digital inclusion: Bringing the rest of American 

online with broadband. Luray, VA: U.S. Internet Industry Association.

Livingston, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, 

young people and the digital divide. New Media Society, 9(4): 671–696.

Locke, G., & Strickling, L.E. (2010). Plan and timetable to make available 500 

Megahertz of spectrum for wireless broadband. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Commerce.

National Telecommunications & Information Administration. (2008). Networked 

Nation: Broadband in America 2007. Washington, DC: U. S. Department 

of Commerce.

Newsom, G., & and the Department of Telecommunications & Information 

Services. (2007). San Francisco digital inclusion strategy. San Francisco, 

CA: Department of Telecommunications & Information Services, City & 

County of San Francisco. Retrieved from: http://www.sfgov3.org/ftp/ 

uploadedfiles/dtis/tech_connect/DigitalInclusionStrategy.doc

Office of Management & Budget. (2009). Improving agency performance using 

information and information technology (Enterprise architecture 

assessment framework v3.1). Retrieved from 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/OM

B_EA_Assessment_Framework_v3_1_June_2009.pdf
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 104 —

Press, L., Burkhart, G., Foster, W., Goodman, S., Wolcott, P. & Woodard, J. (1998). 

An Internet diffusion framework. Communications of the ACM, 41(10): 21–

26.

Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. (2005). Connecting the UK: The digital strategy.

London, United Kingdom.

Sclove, R. (2010). Reinventing technology assessment: A 21st century model. 

Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide: Rethinking digital inclusion 

for the 21st century. Bristol, United Kingdom: Futurelab.

Settanni, C. (2007). From conflict to collaboration: The “Wireless Minneapolis” 

community benefits agreement. Presentation at the December 12, 2007, 

Community Development Forum, sponsored by the Federal Reserve 

Bank of Minneapolis & University of Minnesota's Center for Urban and 

Regional Affairs. Retrieved from http://digitalaccessproject.

blogspot.com/2007/12/presentation-notes.html

Shaffer, G. (2007). Frame-Up: An analysis of arguments for and against municipal 

wireless initiatives. Public Works Management Policy, 11(3): 204–216.

Technology for All. (n.d.). Texas Connects Coalition. Retrieved from 

http://www.techforall.org/Programs/TXConnectsCoalitionTXC2/tabid/17

6/Default.aspx

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Information technology: A framework for 

assessing and improving enterprise architecture management (Version 1.1). 

Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ d03584g.pdf

Wireless Future Program, Stakeholder Strategy Committee. (2006). First report: 

Wireless broadband and public needs: Building constituencies for spectrum 

policy change. Chicago, IL: New America Foundation.

Wireless Internet Institute. (n.d.). Digital inclusion forum. Retrieved from 

http://www.digitalinclusionforum.com/

Wireless Minneapolis Digital Inclusion Task Force. (2006). Final report.

Minneapolis, MN.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 105 —

Reasons for non-adoption 

Abraham, K. (2006). Nonresponse in the American time use survey: Who is 

missing from the data and How much does it matter? Public Opinion 

Quarterly, 70(5): 676–703.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for 

digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22: 269–278. Retrieved from 

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/relatedcontent/2006/October/rc_pare

ntID27342_thisID27365.pdf

Cushman, M., & Klecun, E. (2006a). How (can) nonusers engage with technology: 

Bringing in the digitally excluded. In E. Trauth, D. Howcroft, T. Butler, B. 

Fitzgerald, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Social Inclusion: Societal and 

Organizational Implications for Information Systems (347–364). Boston, 

MA: Springer.

_______. (2006b). I’ve never tried it because I don’t like it: Enabling technology 

choices. Paper presented to the Information, Communication and Society

Conference, York, United Kingdom, September 20–22, 2006. 

Dailey, D., Byrne, A., Powell, A., Karaganis, J., & Chung, J. (2010). Broadband 

adoption in low income communities. Social Science Research Council. 

Retrieved from http://webarchive.ssrc.org/pdfs/ 

Broadband_Adoption_v1.1.pdf

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access 

to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on 

digital inequality. In K. Neckermann (Ed.), Social Inequality (355–400). 

New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in Internet access and 

use. Communication & Society 9,(3): 313–334.

Ford, G. S., Koutsky, T., & Spiwak, L.J. (2008). The broadband efficiency Index: 

What really drives broadband adoption across the OECD? Phoenix Center 

Policy Paper No. 33. Washington, DC: Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal 

& Economic Public Policy Studies.

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ 

use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5): 602–621.
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 106 —

Hassani, S. N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere 

else. Poetics, 34(4–5): 250–272.

Hauge, J. A., & Prieger, J. E. (2010) Demand-side programs to stimulate adoption 

of broadband: What works? Review of Network Economics, 9(3).

Horrigan, J. B. (2007). Closing the broadband divide. Washington, DC: Pew Internet 

& American Life Project, Pew Research Center.

_______. (2009). Stimulating broadband: If Obama builds it, will they log on?

Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, Pew Research 

Center.

Jaeger, P. T. (2006). Telecommunications policy and individuals with disabilities: 

Issues of accessibility and social inclusion in the policy and research 

agenda. Telecommunications Policy, 30: 112–124.

Kvasny, L., & Keil, M. (2006). The challenges of redressing the digital divide: A tale 

of two U.S. cities. Information Systems Journal, 16(1): 23–53.

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, 

young people, and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4): 671–6.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the 

Internet worldwide. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Notley, T., & Foth, M. (2008). Extending Australia’s digital divide policy: An 

examination of the value of social inclusion and social capital policy 

frameworks. Australian Social Policy, 7.

Prieger, J., & Hu, W. M. (2008). The broadband digital divide and the nexus of 

race, competition, and quality. Information Economics & Policy, 20: 150–

167.

Rainie, L. (2010). Broadband. Keynote address at Colorado Broadband conference, 

Denver, November 15, 2010. Retrieved from 

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Presentations/2010/Nov/201

0%20-%2011%2015%2010%20pdf%20-%20Broadband%20-

%20Colorado.pdf 
BUILDING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

— 107 —

Strover, S., Chapman, G., & Waters, J. (2004). The digital vicious cycle: Links 

between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. 

Telecommunications Policy, 28(7/8): 465–485.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration. (2010a). Digital nation: 21st century America’s progress 

toward universal broadband Internet access. Washington, DC.

_______. (2010b). Exploring the digital nation: Home broadband Internet adoption 

in the United States. Washington, DC

Verdegem, P., & Verhoest, P. (2009). Profiling the non-user: Rethinking policy 

initiatives stimulating ICT acceptance. Telecommunications Policy, 33: 

642–652.