iii

Contents 

Section Page 

Executive Summary 1-1

1.1 The Importance of Telecommunications Platforms 

and Technology for Community Economic 

Development ........................................................... 1-2

1.2 ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants......... 1-5

1.3 Long-Term Impacts of Projects.................................. 1-8

1.4 Themes and Recommendations for the Future ........... 1-11

 Introduction 2-1

2.1 Purpose.................................................................. 2-1

2.2 The Appalachian Region ............................................ 2-3

2.2.1 Demographics: 2000 through 2010.................. 2-3

2.2.2 Economy: 2000–2010 .................................... 2-5

2.2.3 Broadband Internet Access: 2004–2013 ........... 2-7

2.2.4 Demographics, Economics, and Internet 

Usage ........................................................ 2-12

2.3 ARC’s Telecommunications and Technology 

Program ............................................................... 2-13

2.3.1 Background and Purpose .............................. 2-13

2.3.2 Program Design........................................... 2-14

2.3.3 Grant Selection and Implementation .............. 2-15

2.4 Summary of the ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grant Portfolio...................................... 2-16

2.5 Structure of the Report........................................... 2-17

 Methods 3-1

3.1 Literature Review..................................................... 3-3
iv

3.2 Project Portfolio Summary ........................................ 3-3

3.3 Survey ................................................................... 3-4

3.4 Case Studies ........................................................... 3-4

3.5 Policy Issues ........................................................... 3-5

Literature Review 4-1

4.1 The Importance of Broadband Internet for 

Community and Economic Development ..................... 4-1

4.2 The Need for Investment in Broadband Internet in 

Appalachia .............................................................. 4-4

4.3 The New Digital World: The Evolving Role of 

Broadband Internet for the Appalachian Region ........... 4-7

4.3.1 Trends and Demonstrated Benefits for 

Households ................................................... 4-7

4.3.2 Trends and Demonstrated Benefits for 

Businesses.................................................. 4-12

4.3.3 Trends and Demonstrated Benefits for 

Community Anchor Institutions ..................... 4-14

4.3.4 Summary ................................................... 4-19

4.4 Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural 

America ................................................................ 4-20

4.4.1 The Rural Broadband Internet Ecosystem ....... 4-21

4.4.2 Actors in the Rural Broadband Internet 

Ecosystem .................................................. 4-22

4.5 Findings and Conclusions ........................................ 4-27

Grant Portfolio Analysis 5-1

5.1 Introduction............................................................ 5-3

5.2 Data Methods.......................................................... 5-3

5.3 Evaluation Framework: Function and Target 

Beneficiary .............................................................. 5-5

5.3.1 Function ....................................................... 5-6

5.3.2 Beneficiary .................................................... 5-9

5.3.3 Summarizing Grants by Function and 

Beneficiary .................................................. 5-10

5.4 Descriptive Analysis ............................................... 5-12

5.4.1 Summary Statistics of the Portfolio ................ 5-12

5.4.2 Scale of Projects .......................................... 5-13

5.4.3 Funding Over Time ...................................... 5-13

5.4.4 Grantees .................................................... 5-15
v 

5.4.5 Function and Beneficiary............................... 5-18

5.4.6 Geographic Distribution of Grants: 

Distressed Areas.......................................... 5-21

5.4.7 Geographic Distribution of Grants: States ....... 5-23

5.5 Grant Performance................................................. 5-26

5.5.1 Performance Measures ................................. 5-26

5.5.2 Portfolio Performance ................................... 5-26

5.5.3 Grant-Level Performance .............................. 5-30

5.6 State Profiles ........................................................ 5-37

5.7 Summary Findings ................................................. 5-53

Survey Analysis 6-1

6.1 Survey Methods....................................................... 6-2

6.1.1 Survey Outreach............................................ 6-2

6.1.2 Survey Design............................................... 6-3

6.1.3 Survey Response Rate.................................... 6-4

6.1.4 Comparing the Survey Population with All 

ARC Grantees ................................................ 6-5

6.2 Survey Analysis..................................................... 6-10

6.2.1 Role of Survey Respondents in the Grant........ 6-10

6.2.2 Grant Background and Operations ................. 6-11

6.2.3 Project Impacts ........................................... 6-19

6.2.4 Sustainability and Reported Impacts of 

Projects after the ARC Grant ......................... 6-31

6.2.5 Economic and Social Conditions in 

Communities............................................... 6-34

6.2.6 Future Needs and Challenges in the 

Community as They Relate to Broadband 

Internet and Computers, and Technology ....... 6-37

6.3 Summary Findings ................................................. 6-40

Case Studies 7-1

7.1 Methods ................................................................. 7-2

7.1.1 Case Selection............................................... 7-2

7.1.2 Site Visits ..................................................... 7-5

7.1.3 Internal and External Validity .......................... 7-6

7.1.4 Site Visit Follow-Up........................................ 7-7

7.2 Cases ..................................................................... 7-7

7.2.1 GIS for West Alabama Water Systems Phase 

I and Systems Phase II .................................. 7-7
vi

7.2.2 Marion County Schools Telecommunications.... 7-12

7.2.3 Whatley Health Services Medical/Dental 

Equipment .................................................. 7-15

7.2.4 Fannin County Workforce Development .......... 7-19

7.2.5 Kentucky Regional High Growth Training 

Center........................................................ 7-23

7.2.6 Allegany County Public School Smart Board .... 7-27

7.2.7 Three Rivers Electronic Filing System ............. 7-30

7.2.8 Schuyler-Chemung-Tioga Board of 

Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) 

Educational Opportunities Network (EON) ....... 7-35

7.2.9 Rutherford County Broadband Internet 

Expansion ................................................... 7-37

7.2.10 Youngstown Ohio Works and Riverbend 

Industrial Park Broadband Internet Access...... 7-42

7.2.11 SEDA Council of Governments (COG) 

Promoting Technology Adoption for Progress 

(PTAP)........................................................ 7-44

7.2.12 Cambria Connected ...................................... 7-48

7.2.13 Tri-County Telecommunications Master 

Planning Initiative and Tri-County 

Technology College Technology 

Infrastructure: Pendleton Campus ................. 7-52

7.2.14 Regional Economic Development GIS 

Upgrade ..................................................... 7-57

7.2.15 Dickenson Center for Education and 

Research Equipment .................................... 7-62

7.2.16 West Virginia State Museum Education........... 7-65

7.3 Summary Findings ................................................. 7-69

7.3.1 Generalizability of Case Study Findings........... 7-69

7.3.2 Cross-Cutting Issues .................................... 7-72

7.3.3 The Difference Made .................................... 7-76

Policy Issues 8-1

8.1 Introduction and Methods ......................................... 8-1

8.2 Key Policy Issues ..................................................... 8-3

8.2.1 Direct Broadband Policy Issues ........................ 8-4

8.2.2 Indirect Broadband Policy Issues ..................... 8-7

8.2.3 Applications of Broadband Policy Issues .......... 8-10

8.2.4 Broadband Availability Policy Issues ............... 8-13

8.2.5 Broadband Adoption and Utilization Policy 

Issues ........................................................ 8-14
vii

8.2.6 Cross-Cutting Broadband Internet Policy 

Issues ........................................................ 8-15

8.3 Summary ............................................................. 8-20

Findings and Recommendations 9-1

9.1 Present and Future of Broadband Internet .................. 9-3

9.1.1 Deployment .................................................. 9-3

9.1.2 Adoption and Utilization.................................. 9-8

9.2 Pressing Needs for the Region ................................. 9-10

9.2.1 Telehealth................................................... 9-10

9.2.2 Education and Workforce .............................. 9-11

9.2.3 Job Creation................................................ 9-12

9.3 The Role of ARC Moving Forward ............................. 9-13

9.3.1 ARC as an Information Nexus ........................ 9-14

9.3.2 ARC as a Grant Operator .............................. 9-17

9.4 Conclusion ............................................................ 9-21

9.4.1 Proactively Scan the Status of Broadband 

Internet Programs and Policies ...................... 9-21

9.4.2 Adopt a More Strategic Approach to 

Grantmaking ............................................... 9-22

9.4.3 Convene, Coordinate, and Educate 

Stakeholders of the Broadband Internet 

Ecosystem .................................................. 9-23

Appendixes 

A Database Modifications............................................. A-1

B Literature Cited ....................................................... B-1

C Survey of Projects Funded by the Appalachian 

Regional Commission on Information Technology 

and Broadband Internet ........................................... C-1

D Abbreviations List ................................................... D-1

E Case Studies ........................................................... E-1
viii

Figures 

Number Page 

1-1. Access to Broadband Internet in the Appalachian 

Region: 2013 .................................................................. 1-3

1-2. ARC Funding and Count of Projects by Broadband 

Internet Functions ........................................................... 1-6

1-3. ARC Funding and Count of Projects by Primary 

Beneficiary ..................................................................... 1-6

2-1. Percentage Change in Population by County in the 

Appalachian Region: 2000–2010 ....................................... 2-4

2-2. Access to Broadband Internet in the Appalachian 

Region: 2013 .................................................................. 2-9

2-3. Appalachian Counties Facing Multiple Barriers to 

Community Economic Development: 2013 ....................... 2-11

2-4. Allocation of ARC Funding to Telecommunications and 

Technology: FY 2004–FY 2010 ........................................ 2-16

3-1. Evaluation Logic Mode ..................................................... 3-2

4-1. Internet Use over Time: Percentage of American Adults 

Who Use the Internet .................................................... 4-12

4-2. Forces Shaping the Broadband Ecosystem in the United 

States .......................................................................... 4-21

5-1. Total Funding and Number of ARC Telecommunications 

and Technology Grants by Project Size: FY 2004–FY 

2010 ........................................................................... 5-14

5-2. ARC Funding for Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants by Fiscal Year: FY 2004–FY 2010 .......................... 5-16

5-3. Total Funding and Funding Sources for ARC 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects by Fiscal 

Year: FY 2004–FY 2010 .................................................. 5-16

5-4. Number of ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants by Fiscal Year: FY 2004–FY 2010 .......................... 5-16

5-5. Number of ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants by Grantee Type: FY 2004–FY 2010 (N=310) ......... 5-17

5-6. Number of Grants with Each Function as a Component of 

the Grant (N=310) ........................................................ 5-18
ix

5-7. ARC Funding by Target Beneficiary of ARC 

Telecommunications and Technology Grants: FY 2004–

FY 2010 ....................................................................... 5-20

5-8. ARC Funding, Leveraged Funding, and Count of Projects 

by Target Beneficiary of ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-20

5-9. Percentage of Grants to Distressed Areas by State: ARC 

Telecommunications and Technology Grants: FY 2004–

FY 2010 ....................................................................... 5-22

5-10. Funding Structure for Projects by Impact on Distressed 

Counties: ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010............................................... 5-22

5-11. Total Funding by State and by Funding Source: ARC 

Telecommunications and Technology Grants: FY 2004–

FY 2010 ....................................................................... 5-24

5-12. Approximate ARC Funding for Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants by County: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............. 5-25

5-13. Performance Measures for the Telecommunications and 

Technology Portfolio ...................................................... 5-27

5-14. Count of Grants by Share of Goals Reached within 85% 

of Projected (n=256) ..................................................... 5-31

5-15. Share of Projects that Reached within 85% or Higher of 

Projected Goals by Function (n=256) ............................... 5-34

5-16. Share of Projects that Reached within 85% or Higher of 

Projected Goals by Primary Beneficiary (n=256) ............... 5-35

5-17. Alabama Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-38

5-18. Georgia Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-39

5-19. Kentucky Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-40

5-20. Maryland Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-41

5-21. Mississippi Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-42

5-22. New York Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-44

5-23. North Carolina Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-45

5-24. Ohio Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-46

5-25. Pennsylvania Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-47

5-26. South Carolina Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-48
x

5-27. Tennessee Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-50

5-28. Virginia Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-51

5-29. West Virginia Funding for ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 .............................. 5-52

6-1. Survey Attrition, Number of Responses by Question ............ 6-5

6-2. Survey Response Rate by Project Function (n=118) ............ 6-6

6-3. Survey Response Rate by Target Beneficiary (n=118).......... 6-6

6-4. Survey Response Rate by State ........................................ 6-8

6-5. Survey Response Rate by Fiscal Year of Funding ................. 6-9

6-6. Survey Response Rate by Impact on Distressed Areas ......... 6-9

6-7. Use of a Community Advisory Group by Target 

Beneficiary of Projects ................................................... 6-13

6-8. Did the Project Meet ARC’s Expectations? (n=103) ............ 6-18

6-9. Types of Impact of Projects (n=106) ............................... 6-20

6-10. Economic Conditions in the Town or Region that the 

Grant Targeted (n=117) ................................................ 6-35

6-11. Sankey Chart Showing the Change in Economic 

Conditions for Survey Respondents (n=117) ..................... 6-36

6-12. Average Satisfaction of Residents with Different Aspects 

of Everyday Life ............................................................ 6-37

7-1. Map of Case Study Locations ............................................ 7-3
xi

Tables 

Number Page 

1-1 Broadband Internet Availability, Economic Distress, and 

Population Change in ARC Distressed Counties .................... 1-4

1-2 Outputs and Outcomes at the Close of ARC Funded 

Projects: FY 2004–FY 2010 ............................................... 1-7

1-3 Stated Impacts of Projects after the Close of the ARC 

Grant Period ................................................................... 1-9

1-4 Key Policy Issues in Broadband Internet ........................... 1-12

2-1 Population Change in the Appalachian Region: 2000–

2010 ............................................................................. 2-3

2-2 Portion of the Population over Age 65: 2000–2010 .............. 2-5

2-3 Poverty Rates: 2000–2010 ............................................... 2-6

2-4 Per Capita Income: FY 2004–FY 2010 ................................ 2-6

2-5 Broadband Internet, Economic Distress, and Population 

Change in Appalachian Counties ...................................... 2-10

4-1 Uses of Broadband Internet .............................................. 4-8

4-2 Actors in the Rural Broadband Internet Ecosystem ............ 4-23

5-1 Outputs of ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants at the End of Grant Period (N=310) ........................ 5-1

5-2 Function Dimension of the Evaluation Framework ................ 5-7

5-3 Function of ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants (N=310) .............................................................. 5-8

5-4 Primary Beneficiary of ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants (N=310) ............................................. 5-9

5-5 Summary of the Framework—Function ............................. 5-11

5-6 Summary Statistics (N=310) .......................................... 5-12

5-7 At-Close Performance of ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010 (N=310) ................. 5-28

5-8 Projected and At-Close Performance of all ARC 

Telecommunications and Technology Grants (n=256) ........ 5-29

5-9 Performance at the Grant Level (n=256) .......................... 5-31

5-10 Characteristics of Projects that Reached 0% or 100% of 

their Projected Goals ..................................................... 5-32

5-11 Number of Multifunctional Grants (n=256) ....................... 5-35

5-12 Share of Grants Reaching Various Levels of Performance ... 5-36
xii

5-13 Projected and At-Close Performance of ARC 

Telecommunications and Technology Grants with a 

Substantial or Primary Impact on Distressed Counties or 

Areas: FY 2004–FY 2010 ................................................ 5-36

6-1 Response Rates .............................................................. 6-4

6-2 Survey Respondents by Multidimensional Function 

(n=118) ......................................................................... 6-7

6-3 Respondent Role in the ARC-Funded Project (n=114) ........ 6-11

6-4 Project At-Close Performance for Projects with and 

without Technical Assistance in Implementing, 

Managing, or Evaluating Projects (n=96) ......................... 6-12

6-5 Project At-Close Performance for Projects with and 

without a Community Advisory Group .............................. 6-13

6-6 Challenges in Carrying Out the Project (n=106) ................ 6-14

6-7 Top Factors that Would Have Helped the Project have a 

Greater Impact (n=109) ................................................ 6-15

6-8 Types of Communications Impacts (n=39) ....................... 6-21

6-9 Types of Jobs and Business Climate Impacts (n=40) ......... 6-22

6-10 Education and Skill Building (n=70) ................................. 6-23

6-11 Public Purposes (n=37) .................................................. 6-24

6-12 Health and Safety (n=35) .............................................. 6-24

6-13 Broader Impacts on the Community (n=87) ..................... 6-26

6-14 Funding Sources after ARC Funds (n=46) ......................... 6-31

6-15 Documented Impacts since Project Closed (n=52) ............. 6-32

6-16 Needs Related to Telecommunications and Technology 

Infrastructure (n=102) .................................................. 6-38

6-17 Needs Related to Adoption of Broadband Internet 

Telecommunications (n=100) ......................................... 6-39

6-18 Needs Related to Education for Broadband Internet 

(n=97) ........................................................................ 6-40

7-1 ARC Project Case Study Characteristics .............................. 7-4

7-2 WARC Counties’ Demographic and Economic Profile............. 7-8

7-3 Changes in WARC Counties and ARC Economic Status ......... 7-9

7-4 Marion County Demographic and Economic Profile ............. 7-12

7-5 Hale County Demographic and Economic Profile ................ 7-16

7-6 Fannin County Demographic and Economic Profile ............. 7-20

7-7 Change in Georgia Appalachian County Economic Status 

2004–2016................................................................... 7-21

7-8 Pulaski County Demographic and Economic Profile ............ 7-24

7-9 Allegany County Demographic and Economic Profile .......... 7-28
xiii

7-10 Three River Planning District Counties’ Demographic and 

Economic Profile ............................................................ 7-31

7-11 Chemung-Schuyler-Tioga Counties’ Demographic and 

Economic Profile ............................................................ 7-35

7-12 Rutherford County Demographic and Economic Profile ....... 7-38

7-13 Mahoning County/City of Youngstown, Ohio, 

Demographic and Economic Profile .................................. 7-42

7-14 SEDA-COG County Democratic and Economic Profile .......... 7-45

7-15 Cambria County Demographic and Economic Profile ........... 7-48

7-16 Anderson, Oconee, and Pickens Counties’ Demographic 

and Economic Profile ..................................................... 7-54

7-17 SETDD Counties’ Economic and Demographic Profile.......... 7-58

7-18 Dickenson County Demographic and Economic Profile ........ 7-63

7-19 West Virginia Demographic and Economic Profile ............... 7-66

8-1 Function Dimension of the Evaluation Framework ................ 8-3

8-2 Key Policy Issues in Broadband Internet ............................. 8-4

8-3 Key Policy Issues for Direct Broadband Deployment............. 8-5

8-4 Key Policy Issues for Indirect Broadband ............................ 8-8

8-5 Key Policy Issues for Applications of Broadband ................ 8-11

8-6 Policy Issues for Adoption of Broadband ........................... 8-14

8-7 Cross-Cutting Policy Issues ............................................. 8-16

1-1 

Executive Summary 

Broadband Internet and the telecommunications technologies

that deliver it are integral to bolstering community economic 

development and alleviating the barriers to economic 

opportunity that persist in all too many Appalachian 

communities. Between fiscal year (FY) 2004 and FY 2010, the 

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) funded 322 projects 

as part of its telecommunications and technology program to 

increase broadband Internet availability, access, and adoption. 

These projects are highly diverse, encompassing different types 

of telecommunications and technology, geographies, scales, 

time spans, and costs. RTI International and a small team of 

consultants launched the evaluation to build and document a 

robust understanding of the impacts resulting from these 

projects. The RTI team also sought to identify important factors 

and glean best practices to guide future broadband Internet 

development efforts for the Appalachian Region.

The evaluation employed a five-pronged approach:

 a literature review on the importance of broadband 

Internet to rural community economic development

 a thorough description of the grant portfolio

 a survey to grantees, or closest available contacts, to 

share insights on the ARC grant impact not captured in 

closeout reports

 case studies of 18 select projects that highlight the 

tangible and intangible elements that helped foster the 

success of individual projects

 a review of the current policy environment and how 

those policies play a role in broadband Internet 

investments for the future

The timing and findings of this evaluation are significant as ARC 

finalizes and adopts a new strategic plan that recognizes the 

increased importance of broadband Internet for rural 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

1-2 

communities. The demands for broadband Internet in rural 

communities are numerous and intertwined with approaches for 

improving the social and economic conditions in the 

Appalachian Region. These demands are also growing rapidly as 

technology evolves and society becomes more dependent on 

the Internet for goods and services. At the same time, the 

policy environment for deploying broadband Internet is 

hyperdynamic, making it difficult for communities to ascertain 

the best path for improving broadband Internet deployment, 

adoption, and utilization for a future where all things are 

connected to the Internet. 

1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLATFORMS AND 

TECHNOLOGY FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT 

Broadband Internet telecommunications and technology is 

essential infrastructure for community and economic 

development today. Communities without access to broadband 

Internet face serious challenges such as lower access to quality 

health care, education, and training for workers and children 

and reduced access to markets for area businesses. Rural 

communities of Appalachia are no exception. 

Research substantiates these assertions, showing that areas 

with higher levels of broadband Internet availability tend to 

perform better in economic development indicators such as 

income, unemployment, and job creation. Additionally, 

broadband Internet fosters positive benefits to education and 

health services, as well as lower costs for business transactions 

and government services. Applications including telemedicine, 

e-learning, and online business platforms have all shown 

important cost savings and benefits to users, particularly in 

rural areas. 

The Appalachian Region, as defined by ARC, comprises 420 

counties in 13 states from Mississippi to New York (see 

Figure 1-1). The Region is defined by a slow rate of population 

growth, below-average economic outcomes, and low rates of 

broadband Internet penetration. Within this Region, ARC 

designates distinct counties as economically “distressed.” Using 

an index-based classification system for indicators including 

unemployment, income, and poverty, ARC identifies distressed 
Section 1 — Executive Summary 

1-3 

Figure 1-1. Access to Broadband Internet in the Appalachian Region: 2013 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

1-4 

counties as those that fall in the lowest 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties within these three indicators. As depicted in 

Figure 1-1, we found that distressed counties also tend to have 

the lowest availability of broadband Internet. 

Some of these distressed areas face a trifecta of barriers—

economic distress, declining population, and a lack of highspeed Internet availability—for community economic 

development (see Table 1-1). These trends are interrelated 

and cyclical in nature. Poor counties have less economic 

opportunity and thus can lose population as residents seek jobs 

elsewhere. Access, adoption, and utilization of broadband 

Internet by the Region’s citizens and businesses is a catalytic 

factor for business growth and workforce development—two 

critical elements for increasing employment. The catalytic 

nature of broadband Internet is stymied, however, by the lack 

of access and adoption. This is exacerbated by broadband 

Internet service providers being less likely to provide services 

in sparsely populated areas because it initially has a lower 

return on investment and is less cost-effective. 

Table 1-1. Broadband Internet Availability, Economic Distress, and Population Change in 

ARC Distressed Counties 

ARC County Designation FY 2014

Distressed 

(n=90)

Not Distressed 

(n=330) Difference

Basic broadband Internet availability 2013a 83.6% 93.9% 10.2%b

Population change 2000–2010 +0.3% +6.6% 5.3%b

a

 Basic broadband Internet defined as >3 Mbps download advertised speed 

b

 Significant at the 99% confidence level 

Source: ARC, U.S. Census Bureau, NTIA National Broadband Map 

Availability alone is not a cure-all solution for issues related to 

telecommunications technology: projects must also address 

adoption issues that help residents of the Appalachian Region 

use broadband Internet. ARC, in its grantmaking efforts, 

targeted all aspects of telecommunications and technology, 

from increasing availability to improving adoption through 

devices, education, digital literacy, and Internet-based 

applications. Such a comprehensive strategy is essential to 

effecting the needed changes. 
Section 1 — Executive Summary 

1-5 

1.2 ARC TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY GRANTS 

During the period between FY 2004 and FY 2010, ARC granted 

nearly $41 million to telecommunications and technology 

programs, which leveraged another $59 million in local, state, 

and federal funding for a total of approximately $100 million 

over 322 projects. Over the 7-year grant period, ARC invested 

in a wide range of projects in terms of size, grantees, function, 

beneficiary, and geography. This range reflects the diverse 

needs and priorities of member states as they selected projects 

of most importance to their state. 

We categorize ARC grants across the spectrum of broadband 

Internet functions beginning with the physical infrastructure of 

broadband Internet (direct broadband) and stretching across to 

the devices that connect to broadband Internet, to the 

applications to make use of the Internet, and adoption 

measures to improve knowledge and digital literacy. ARC 

invested across all of these stages of the spectrum in order to 

have the greatest impact on accessibility and adoption. 

Figure 1-2 shows the number of grants and amount of funding 

allocated to the different functions that support broadband 

Internet. ARC frequently invested in equipment supported by 

broadband, such as computers and hardware to improve 

network connectivity within schools, hospitals, community 

centers, and government buildings. Additionally, RTI identified 

101 projects that had multiple functions, addressing a variety 

of needs along the broadband Internet spectrum. Examples 

included projects that invested in equipment supported by 

broadband as well as a digital literacy curriculum to improve 

Internet adoption. 

ARC’s grants also targeted different segments of the 

community. We describe these as primary beneficiaries of the 

grants. These beneficiaries are summarized in Figure 1-3. 

Project types varied by their primary beneficiary; education and 

job training projects accounted for over half of ARC’s funding 

during this period. Commonly, grants went to technology for 

classrooms, which often included equipment combined with 

digital literacy skills or an online learning curriculum. These 

initiatives, focused at K–12 education and job training, were 

meant to prepare individuals for both technology adoption at 

home and competitive skills in the job market. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

1-6 

Figure 1-2. ARC Funding and Count of Projects by Broadband Internet Functions

Source: ARC.net, RTI. Because of multifunctional projects, totals add to greater than portfolio totals.

Figure 1-3. ARC Funding and Count of Projects by Primary Beneficiary

Source: ARC.net, RTI
Section 1 — Executive Summary 

1-7 

The outputs and outcomes from these investments, as 

documented at the close of ARC’s involvement with each 

project, show how these grants affect the community in the 

short term. The numbers reveal a significant number of impacts 

on participants, patients, students, workers, businesses, and 

households that were served or improved as a result of the ARC 

grant. For example, ARC grantees improved 41,000 

households; served over 5,000 businesses; created 2,800 jobs; 

leveraged over $10 million in private investment; and served 

286,000 patients, 152,000 students, and 22,500 workers. All of 

the grant outputs and outcomes are illustrated in Table 1-2. 

These results also reflect the wide reach of telecommunications 

and technology grants in rural Appalachia, illustrating the 

importance of technology to health, education, business 

development, and local government capacity. 

Table 1-2. Outputs and Outcomes at the Close of ARC Funded Projects: FY 2004–FY 2010 

Performance Measure Amount At-Close n

Businesses created 101 11

Businesses served 5,176 36

Households improved 40,941 8

Jobs created 2,849 41

Jobs retained 759 6

Leveraged private investment $10,319,458 15

Linear feet 756,494 10

Participants improved 212,625 34

Participants served 151,141 61

Patients improved 279,554 8

Patients served 285,994 9

Plans/reports 52 18

Programs implemented 108 34

Students improved 59,490 87

Students served 152,027 112

Telecommunications sites 676 108

Workers/trainees improved 10,058 57

Workers/trainees served 22,510 60

Note: n indicates the number of grants that used the corresponding performance measures for their projected 

goals or at-close performance measures. Includes totals for all grants (N=310). 

Source: ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants FY 2004–FY 2010, RTI 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

1-8 

To get a sense of the performance of grants, we review how 

each grant performed at project close-out as compared with the 

stated goals at the grant’s beginning. Fourteen percent of 

projects exceeded all of their goals—a notable achievement, 

particularly when projects have multiple goals. Fifty percent of 

projects met or exceeded their goals, while 55 percent of 

projects reached all of their goals by at least within 85 percent 

of their projected outputs or outcomes. 

In terms of grant implementation, 55 percent of survey 

respondents indicated that they did not face challenges in 

carrying out their grant. For the 45 percent of respondents who 

self-reported facing challenges, the obstacles they most 

frequently confronted were issues with staffing including lack of 

expertise, not enough time to dedicate to the grant, and staff 

turnover. Difficulty in securing outside funding was the second 

most cited challenge by survey respondents. 

Other issues in reaching performance goals related to the 

challenge of predicting project outputs and outcomes in the 

grant proposal, as well as the long-term nature of some of the 

outputs and outcomes. Leveraged private investment and 

businesses that were created, for example, can take several 

years to reach their target goals, which may not be captured 

adequately at the end of the grant period. More tangible 

measures such as plans completed or telecommunication sites 

or linear feet of fiber deployed tended to have better 

performance, while measures such as job creation or student 

improvement were more long term and harder to quantify in 

the short term. This finding underscores the importance of 

focusing on medium- to long-term impacts of the ARC grants. 

The RTI team’s survey and case studies offer more insight into 

how projects evolved to have even greater impacts over time 

for the Appalachian Region. 

1.3 LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF PROJECTS 

Through its survey and case studies, RTI captured the longterm and qualitative impacts of projects that were not captured 

in the immediate closeout numbers. Survey results provided 

insights into the long-term impacts of projects after the close of 

the grant, which, in many cases, were greater than those that 

occurred during the grant period. For example, the number of 

businesses created (124) was greater than the original at-close 
Section 1 — Executive Summary 

1-9 

performance measure of 101 businesses created. Table 1-3

presents all of the stated after-close impacts from the survey, 

representing approximately one-sixth of the total ARC grant 

portfolio. Even though these figures represent a small portion 

of the overall portfolio, it is remarkable to note the kinds of 

impacts that the ARC grants have generated. For example, a 

telecommunications master planning initiative led to 

investments in quicker, more reliable, and significantly less 

expensive Internet service, serving over 10,000 students and 

200 local businesses, all of which occurred as a result of the 

ARC-funded project. 

Table 1-3. Stated Impacts of Projects after the Close of the ARC Grant Period 

Impact Type Sum of Impacts Count of Respondents 

Businesses created 124 5

Businesses served 2,116 12

Households improved 287 8

Jobs created 2,883 8

Jobs retained 415 6

Funding leveraged $72,754,002 5

Linear feet of broadband Internet established 113,040 2

Participants improved 4,659 7

Participants served 4,719 9

Patients improved 1 1

Patients served 212,345 4

Plans or reports created 17 6

Programs implemented 105 14

Students improved 19,070 12

Students served 49,646 25

Telecommunications sites established 2 2

Workers/trainees improved 1,412 9

Workers/trainees served 3,067 12

Note: Paired output/outcome measures are shaded in gray. 

Source: RTI Survey Q13 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

1-10

Moreover, over three-quarters of projects surveyed continued 

after the end of the ARC funding period, and over half of 

projects surveyed received follow-up funding from a variety of 

sources, indicating the longevity of ARC’s investments. We 

identified three types of additional long-term impacts of 

projects that fell outside of ARC’s traditional performance 

numbers: 

 Increased capacity

ARC’s investment increases the capacity of local 

institutions to deliver better services, meeting a broad 

array of ongoing, local needs. This improvement was 

found across educational institutions, public entities, 

health care facilities, nonprofit organizations, and 

private businesses. 

 Bolstered economic viability

The support received through ARC also bolstered the 

economic viability of the area by targeting fundamental 

roadblocks to workforce development and business 

recruitment, among other important growth 

opportunities. 

 Catalyst for longer-term transformation 

ARC’s funding is considered by many respondents as a 

catalyst for longer-term transformation. Targeted 

projects are often described as the first steps that 

underpin larger, enduring efforts that have shifted the 

way communities have progressed. Inclusive 

engagement and collaboration effected by the projects 

create a platform for future efforts. 

In addition to its survey, the RTI team conducted a series of 

case studies to provide additional insights into the nature of 

how projects were able to succeed in achieving their goals and 

promoting long-term development. Common themes among the 

18 case studies included the following: 

 attention to the evolving nature of technology with a 

focus on open system and adaptable solutions, 

 proactive planning with embedded adaptability, and 

 organic partnerships unified by a shared sense of need 

and vision. 

These traits were common threads in both project design and 

implementation that helped the grants realize greater potential 

as they were designed and implemented. 
Section 1 — Executive Summary 

1-11

1.4 THEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 

FUTURE 

The forces shaping the telecommunications ecosystem today 

are very different from those that defined it through much of 

the FY 2004 to FY 2010 evaluation period. The shift to cloud 

computing, the explosive adoption of mobile devices, the 

emergence of the Internet of Things, and the massive move of 

services in key sectors to web-based platforms are 

fundamentally changing the paradigm of how individuals and 

organizations access and use digital information. Understanding 

the policy environment is important because there are many 

cross-cutting and significant implications for businesses, 

workers, households, and community-based institutions like 

libraries and schools as they seek to flourish and maintain 

relevance in the future. 

To help inform these kinds of decisions, we reviewed 22 policy 

issues that underpin key dynamics important for the future of 

broadband Internet in Appalachian communities. They are 

summarized in Table 1-4. Even a brief summary of crosscutting issues facing broadband Internet access, provision, and 

deployment underscores the hyperdynamic policy environment 

for the organizations, agencies, and individuals involved. The 

stakes are high, with significant potential for winners and losers 

to emerge. Certain policy directions could make it much easier 

or much more difficult for rural communities to access and use 

broadband Internet. Some of the cross-cutting issues, such as 

“dig and wire once” policies and public–private partnerships, 

will be driven at the local and state levels, while other issues, 

such as net neutrality, will be dealt with at the federal level. 

ARC and its member states can stay abreast of these issues at 

all levels and monitor how the Region will be affected by rules 

and regulations as they unfold. As ARC forges into a new period 

of telecommunications and technology grantmaking, it can 

navigate this volatile policy climate and adjust its course 

accordingly so that ARC and its member communities can best 

carve out a role for its investments to have the greatest longterm impacts. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

1-12

Table 1-4. Key Policy Issues in Broadband Internet 

Function Key Policy Issues

Direct broadband  Copper-to-fiber transition/“IP Transition”

 Mobile vs. fiber

 Gigabit cities

 Last-mile connectivity

 Electric co-ops, municipal electric utilities, and other entrants into the 

marketplace

 Public–private partnerships

Indirect broadband/

supported by 

broadband

 Mobile device penetration

 Connected devices to the Internet or the “Internet of Things”

 Cloud computing

 Medical insurance for telehealth projects

Applications of 

broadband

 Legal barriers to telemedicine

 e911 needs coordination with FirstNet

 Schools are shifting to digital curricula and e-textbooks

 Certification issues surrounding distance learning for teachers

Availability of 

broadband

 E-rate program

 Federal and state government funding for broadband Internet

Across all functions  Net neutrality

 “Dig and wire once”/coinvestment

 Local choice

 Cybersecurity/privacy of data

 Tax policy

 Broadband Opportunities Council

Source: RTI and Consultant Team. 

Building on the understanding of the overactive and unstable 

policy climate, combined with the findings from the evaluation’s 

literature review, grant portfolio summary, survey, and case 

studies, the RTI team developed a series of recommendations 

for action going forward. They fall into a three categories: 

understanding broader themes in broadband Internet, 

addressing pressing needs for the Appalachian Region, and 

effectively managing information and grants moving forward. 

Each of these recommendations comes with several action 

items that can help inform state program managers looking to 

develop strategies for telecommunications and technologybased development in their respective regions. 
Section 1 — Executive Summary 

1-13

 Understanding broader themes in broadband Internet: 

In rural America, broadband Internet is an essential tool 

for connectivity that faces serious obstacles to 

deployment and accessibility. Some of the obstacles 

include a lack of incentives for the private sector, 

inadequate information, expensive last mile connectivity, 

and legacy technologies that become obsolete relatively 

quickly. ARC can continue to act proactively in this 

changing landscape by engaging in public–private 

partnerships, sharing knowledge among shareholders, 

investing in last mile projects, and prioritizing projects 

with technology that will be viable in the long term, such 

as high-capacity fiber. 

 Addressing pressing needs for the Appalachian Region: 

The Region has a series of particular needs for Internet 

access that are similar to the rest of the rural United 

States. Affordability and digital literacy are among the 

principal barriers to adoption among individual users. 

Pressing needs in health, education, and job creation 

can be addressed by improving broadband Internet 

availability and creating legal structures that encourage 

innovative, technology-based solutions such as 

telemedicine and e-learning that can benefit rural 

populations. 

 Defining the role of ARC moving forward: Between FY 

2004 and FY 2010, ARC was flexible in its investments 

and, as a result, reached out to a wide range of 

beneficiaries through diverse grants across the entire 

telecommunications and technology spectrum. With its 

experience, ARC is uniquely positioned to be an expert 

on best practices and a nexus for information. 

Additionally, by improving its data collection, evaluation, 

and grant management techniques, it can continue to 

gain rich information and insights on the impacts of 

grants in the medium to long term. With its state 

program directors, ARC can contribute to greater future 

success by sharing information among states and 

grantees and conducting follow-on surveys at regular 

intervals after the close of each ARC-funded project. 

Through ARC-supported efforts, distressed communities 

throughout Appalachia acquired telecommunications 

infrastructure, technology, training, and investment that 

resulted in improved access to education, health care, 

government and community services; business development; 

job training; and improved employability. These projects 

enabled public and nonprofit organizations to dramatically 

change the way they interact with clients and increase the 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

1-14

number and quality of services delivered. ARC grants expanded 

the capacities of technology-assisted teachers in the 

Appalachian Region and reached learners of all ages through 

innovative educational strategies. 

Beyond the ARC grant period, most projects sustained local 

support to continue or expand their operations. High levels of 

community support attest to the fact that local stakeholders 

valued ARC’s effort. Additionally, high reported impacts after 

closeout offer evidence of sustained, long-term development 

that was not originally captured in the at-close numbers. The 

findings from RTI’s evaluation, in conjunction with expert 

assessment of changes in the broadband regulatory, technical, 

and market arenas, form the basis of recommendations that 

can provide guidance to ARC as it looks forward. By helping 

other communities shape and build a more competitive, 

broadband-enabled future, ARC will remain on the forefront of 

rural telecommunications and technology development. 
2-1 

Introduction 

The purpose of this evaluation is to obtain a robust 

understanding of the range of impacts that resulted from the 

ARC’s telecommunications and technology portfolio of 

investments between FY 2004 and FY 2010. As ARC finalizes 

and adopts a new strategic plan that recognizes the increased 

importance of broadband Internet for rural communities, with 

these findings, ARC and other stakeholders can be more 

informed on ways to continue to improve broadband Internet

access and affordability.

In this section, we explain the purpose and program design of 

this ARC initiative, summarize the socioeconomic conditions and 

state of broadband Internet availability and affordability in the 

Appalachian Region, and briefly describe the ARC 

telecommunications and technology grant portfolio.

2.1 PURPOSE 

Broadband Internet and the telecommunications platforms that 

deliver it are integral to strategies to alleviate the economic and 

social distress that defines all too many Appalachian 

communities. ARC funded 322 grants as part of its 

telecommunications and technology program between 2004 

and 2010 for their potential to increase Internet access. It 

aimed to improve infrastructure and to increase the availability 

and adoption of online health care and educational services in 

the Region. These projects are highly diverse, encompassing 

different types of interventions, geographies, scales, time 

spans, and costs.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-2 

Given the importance of broadband Internet and the 

technologies that rely on it for future economic development of 

the Appalachian Region, it is important to understand the 

impacts that these investments have had on Appalachian 

communities and the people that live and work there. 

Furthermore, given the highly diverse nature of the projects 

and the hyperdynamic broadband Internet policy environment 

that ARC is operating in, it is critical to evaluate these projects 

with a thoughtful multidimensional approach that can best 

demonstrate the scale and illuminate the nuances of the results 

of these projects. 

RTI International partnered with a team of the nation’s leading 

rural broadband Internet and telecommunications experts to 

conduct this evaluation from October 2014 through October 

2015. RTI is an independent nonprofit research institute, 

headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, that 

provides research, development, and technical services to 

government and commercial clients worldwide. The small team 

of consultants engaged on this evaluation collectively has over 

120 years of experience in digital and broadband Internet 

technologies and deployment of large and small networks at the 

local, state, national, and international levels. The consultants 

were 

 Jim Baller, Broadband Internet Legal Expert; 

 Mark Johnson, Broadband Internet Technical Expert; 

 John Horrigan, Broadband Policy Expert; 

 Jane Smith Patterson, Broadband Internet Development, 

Deployment, and Policy Expert; 

 Ashley Stelfox, Broadband Internet Legal Expert; and 

 Deborah Watts, Broadband Internet Evaluation and 

Implementation Expert. 

Together RTI and the expert consultants bring experience in the 

telecommunications and media sectors, rural community 

economic development, and rigorous data collection and 

evaluation. 

With this evaluation, the RTI team provides ARC with detailed 

data about the impacts of its telecommunications and 

technology projects from 2004 through 2010. Our survey and 

case studies help inform ARC and other rural broadband 

Internet stakeholders about what tends to work well with these 

Given the importance of 

broadband Internet and 

the technologies that rely 

on it for future economic 

development of the 

Appalachian Region, it is 

important to understand 

the impacts that these 

investments have had on 

Appalachian communities

and the people that live 

and work there.
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-3 

kinds of investments and ways for investors to improve similar 

kinds of projects. Moreover, we understand the highly dynamic 

policy environment of broadband Internet, and the team has 

tailored the research to help rural broadband Internet 

stakeholders navigate decision making within this context for 

the future. 

2.2 THE APPALACHIAN REGION

The Appalachian Region, as defined by ARC, contains 420 

counties in 13 states from Mississippi to New York. The Region 

is defined by a slow rate of population growth, below-average 

economic outcomes, and low rates of broadband Internet 

penetration. Understanding these factors is important in 

framing the challenges the Region faces in telecommunications 

and technology adoption. 

2.2.1 Demographics: 2000 through 2010

In 2010, the Appalachian Region was home to over 25 million 

people. The Region grew between the 2000 and 2010 census, 

but its rate of growth was lower than that of the United States 

as a whole. Table 2-1 shows the change in population over the 

10-year period. 

Population

2000 2010 Change, % 

United States (total) 281,421,906 308,745,538 +9.7

Appalachian Region 23,462,578 25,243,456 +6.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ARC 

Population growth and decline have not been evenly distributed 

across the Appalachian Region. Figure 2-1 shows the change 

in population by county in the Region between 2000 and 2010. 

As the map indicates, the largest regional outflow of people 

during the decade was from Northern and Central Appalachia, 

particularly in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. 

Additionally, economically distressed1 regions of Alabama and 

Mississippi suffered significant population losses. Growth was 

concentrated in Georgia and Southern Appalachia. 

 

1

 Economic distress is an indexed measure of income, poverty, and 

unemployment used by ARC to define the economic well-being of 

counties for program funding. 

Table 2-1. Population 

Change in the 

Appalachian Region: 

2000–2010
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-4 

Figure 2-1. Percentage Change in Population by County in the Appalachian Region: 2000–

2010
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-5 

As a whole, the Region is growing more slowly than the rest of 

the United States and its population is increasingly aging. The 

Region is characterized by an outflow of younger, skilled 

workers. Table 2-2 shows that from 2000 through 2010 the 

Appalachian Region had a higher percentage of the population 

over age 65 than the nation, and the proportion of residents 

over 65 has been growing more quickly as a share of the 

population in the Region. 

Percent, %

Population Over Age 65

2000 2010 Change

United States (total) 12.4 13.0 +4.8

Appalachian Region 14.3 15.1 +5.6

Source: Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness and West Virginia 

University

According to the ARC-commissioned report Appalachia: Then 

and Now: Examining Changes to the Appalachian Region Since 

1965, prepared by the Center for Regional Economic 

Competitiveness (CREC) and West Virginia University, the 

Region has poorer health outcomes and higher rates of 

mortality than the national average. In 2010, there were 1,018 

deaths per 100,000 population (not age adjusted) in the 

Appalachian Region compared with an average of 800 for the 

country as a whole.2

 Health outcomes are indicative of the 

larger elderly population and limited access to critical health 

services in rural areas. 

2.2.2 Economy: 2000–2010

The Appalachian Region has higher rates of poverty and lower 

per capita market income compared with the United States 

average.3 The Appalachian Region has a higher percentage of 

 

2

 Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness and West Virginia 

University. February 2015. Appalachia Then and Now: Examining 

Changes to the Appalachian Region Since 1965. Prepared for the 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/AppalachiaThenAndNo

wCompiledReports.pdf on August 12, 2015. 

3 Appalachian Regional Commission. No date. “Data Reports: Select 

Data Topics.” Accessed at http://www.arc.gov/data on September 

23, 2015. 

Table 2-2. Portion of the 

Population over Age 65: 

2000–2010
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-6 

people in poverty, and that percentage is continuing to increase 

(see Table 2-3).

Percent, %

Poverty

2000 2010 Change

United States (total) 12.4 13.8 +11.2

Appalachian Region 13.6 15.6 +14.7

Source: ARC Data Reports4

In addition to high rates of poverty, the Region has a lower 

labor force participation rate than the country as a whole. The 

CREC and West Virginia University report also stated that the 

labor force participation rate in the Region was 59.5 percent 

compared with a 64.2 percent national average. It argued that 

fewer job opportunities, a more prominent informal sector, and 

a portion of the population receiving government transfer 

payments all contributed to a low labor force participation rate.5

The Appalachian Region’s high rates of poverty and joblessness 

are related to the per capita market income, which is below the 

national average. The Appalachian Region’s per capita market 

income was $24,425 in 2010 compared with $32,562 for the 

United States, a difference of $8,137 (see Table 2-4). 

Per Capita Marketa

Income, $

2004 2010 Change, %

United States (total) 28,187 32,562 +15.5%

Appalachian Region 21,587 24,425 +13.1%

Source: ARC Data Reports 

a Per capita market income defined as total personal income less transfer 

payments, divided by population 

 

4

 Appalachian Regional Commission. Data Reports website. Accessed 

at http://www.arc.gov/data on August 30, 2015. 

5

 Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness and West Virginia 

University. February 2015. Appalachia Then and Now: Examining 

Changes to the Appalachian Region Since 1965. Prepared for the 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/AppalachiaThenAndNo

wCompiledReports.pdf on August 12, 2015. 

Table 2-3. Poverty 

Rates: 2000–2010

Fewer job opportunities, a 

more prominent informal 

sector, and a portion of the 

population receiving government transfer payments all 

contributed to a low labor 

force participation rate.

Table 2-4. Per Capita 

Income: FY 2004–FY 

2010
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-7 

Within the Region, there are important differences in economic 

conditions, which ARC accounts for using its county economic 

status designation. ARC uses an index to indicate levels of 

economic well-being; “distressed” is the most critical. Three 

indicators are used to determine the categorization of county 

economies: 3-year average unemployment rate, per capita 

market income, and poverty rate.6 ARC emphasizes 

investments in economically distressed areas. As research later 

in the report shows (see Section 4.4), income and costs of 

service are critical limiting factors in the success of 

telecommunications and technology adoption in the Region, 

particularly in economically distressed areas. 

2.2.3 Broadband Internet Access: 2004–2013 

The National Telecommunications & Information Administration 

(NTIA) defines basic broadband Internet service as having 

advertised speeds of greater than 3 Mbps download. NTIA 

considers that to be sufficient for sending email and using other 

basic Internet services.7 NTIA calculates the approximate 

number of households by county that have access to basic 

broadband Internet services. Availability is the first step in 

adopting Internet-based applications, and it serves to indicate 

the level of broadband Internet infrastructure in a region. 

In 2004, Oden and Strover outlined the state of broadband 

Internet deployment in the Appalachian Region, noting that in 

that year 88 percent of zip codes in the United States had 

access to a broadband Internet service provider. However, only 

58 percent of the Appalachian Region had the same access. 

They argued that the modern digital divide between the Region 

and the rest of the United States would become a contributing 

factor in lower economic opportunity for those living in the 

Region.8 Telecommunications and technology availability in the 

Appalachian Region have changed dramatically since the 

 

6 Appalachian Regional Commission. No date. “County Economic Status 

and Distressed Areas in Appalachia.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/CountyEconomicStatusand

DistressedAreasinAppalachia.asp on September 23, 2015. 

7 NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce. May 13, 2013. “NTIA Explores 

Broadband Availability in New Report Series.” Accessed at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/ntia-explores-broadbandavailability-new-report-series on September 23, 2015, 

8

 Oden, Michael and Strover, Sharon. June 2004. “2004 Update: Links 

to the Future: The Role of Information and Telecommunications 

Technology in Appalachian Economic Development.” University of 

Texas. 

ARC uses an index to 

indicate levels of 

economic well-being:

“distressed” is the most 

critical.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-8 

publication of the report. Broadband Internet penetration in the 

Region had improved significantly by 2013, reaching 

approximately 92 percent of households. 

Despite the significant advances, availability was lower than the 

national average and unevenly distributed across the Region.

Figure 2-2 highlights basic broadband Internet availability in 

the Appalachian Region in 2013, representing the most up-todate data available. It illustrates the low levels of broadband 

Internet availability in economically distressed areas, 

particularly in the central region of Tennessee, Kentucky, and 

West Virginia. 

To better understand the relationship between broadband 

Internet availability, economic distress, and population change, 

we present data for each of these indicators in Table 2-5. The 

data show that economically distressed counties tended to have 

lower rates of broadband Internet availability (83.6 percent as 

compared with 93.9 percent for nondistressed counties) and 

flat population growth (0.3 percent population change in 

distressed counties compared with 6.6 percent in nondistressed 

counties). These data reinforce Oden and Strover’s hypothesis 

that low levels of broadband Internet access are related to poor 

economic conditions. There was over a 10 percentage point 

difference in broadband Internet availability between 

economically distressed and nondistressed counties in 2013. 

Although this statistic does not prove a causal relationship, it 

shows a correlation between economic conditions and 

broadband Internet availability. 

Taken together, the data show that distressed areas face a 

trifecta of barriers for community economic development: 

economic distress, declining population, and a lack of highspeed Internet availability. These trends are interrelated and 

cyclical in nature. Poor counties have less economic opportunity 

and thus can lose population as residents seek jobs elsewhere. 

Broadband Internet is an infrastructure critical for business 

growth and workforce development—two critical elements for 

increasing employment. A lack of access to broadband Internet 

can constrain counties trying to improve their community 

economic development because business owners, workers, 

students, parents, and health care providers are not able to 

access the digital economy and society. This situation is 

exacerbated by the fact that broadband Internet service. 

Broadband Internet

penetration in the Region had 

improved significantly by 

2013, reaching 92 percent of 

households, However, 

availability was lower than 

the national average and 

unevenly distributed across 

the Region.

There was nearly a 13 

percentage point 

difference in broadband 

Internet availability 

between economically 

distressed and 

nondistressed counties in 

2013. Although this 

statistic does not prove a 

causal relationship, it 

shows a correlation 

between economic 

conditions and 

broadband Internet

availability.
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-9 

Figure 2-2. Access to Broadband Internet in the Appalachian Region: 2013 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-10

Basic Broadband 

Internet Availability 

and Population Change

ARC County Designation FY 

2014

Distressed 

(n=90)

Not Distressed 

(n=330) Difference

Basic broadband Internet 

availability 2013a

83.6% 93.9% 10.2%b

Population change 2000–

2010

+0.3% +6.6% 5.3%b

a

 Basic broadband Internet defined as >3 Mbps download advertised speed 

b

 Significant at the 99% confidence level 

Source: ARC Data Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, NTIA National Broadband Map 

providers are less likely to provide services in sparsely 

populated areas because it is not cost-effective 

The dynamics of these three trends working in tandem in 

counties within the Appalachian Region underscore the 

importance of investments by organizations like ARC in 

improving telecommunications service and technology in 

economically distressed areas. Figure 2-3 shows the 

Appalachian counties that face multiple barriers to community 

economic development. A barrier is defined as one or more of 

the following characteristics: economic distress, low levels of 

broadband Internet availability, declining population. Nearly 

every state has counties experiencing one or more barriers, 

while Kentucky and West Virginia have a concentration of 

multiple counties experiencing all three barriers. 

As a whole, more people in the Region today have access to 

high-speed Internet services, and continuing expansion of wired 

and wireless technology will increase access. However, counties 

with economic distress and declining population are continuing 

to fall behind in the Region. Improving access will allow 

Appalachian residents better access to business, education, 

health, and other opportunities through the Internet. 

There are new challenges regarding Internet adoption and 

improving technology. 

 Private telecommunications providers will be less likely 

to invest in areas with declining population, viewing a 

lower return on investment from a shrinking potential 

customer base. This could have increasingly negative 

effects on areas experiencing two and three barriers to 

community economic development (see Figure 2-3).

Table 2-5. Broadband 

Internet, Economic 

Distress, and Population 

Change in Appalachian 

Counties
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-11

Figure 2-3. Appalachian Counties Facing Multiple Barriers to Community Economic 

Development: 2013 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-12

 Broadband Internet availability is not sufficient; there 

are significant challenges in broadband Internet 

adoption. NTIA and the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) broadband Internet figures indicate 

the availability of service: they not indicate the 

percentage of Internet users. Barriers to adoption 

include cost of a device to connect, service costs, and 

digital literacy of the user. 

 Increased demand for high-tech online services and 

advancing technology in digital and fiber 

communications is increasing Internet speeds across the 

country. Business, educational, and health applications 

such as cloud computing and teleconferencing require 

higher speed service beyond the NTIA definition for 

basic broadband Internet. In 2014, NTIA and FCC 

updated the threshold for high speed broadband 

Internet to >25MB/sec download, >3MB/sec upload.9

ARC, through its telecommunications and technology program, 

focused on improving the broadband Internet infrastructure, 

applying technology to educational, economic, and health 

outcomes, as well as helping to overcome the cost barriers to 

technology adoption. 

2.2.4 Demographics, Economics, and Internet Usage 

The aforementioned demographic and economic shifts have an 

impact on how telecommunications technology affects economic 

development. The shifts highlight the urgency of using 

telecommunications technology through the broadband Internet 

to improve health, education, and economic outcomes and 

provide more opportunities for well-paid jobs for young people 

in the Region. They also indicate that the Region still faces 

important obstacles that ARC is working to overcome. 

In 2015, the Pew Research Center reported that older, rural 

Americans were among the most likely not to use the Internet. 

Thirty-nine percent of those age 65 or older, as well as 24 

percent of rural Americans, reported not using the Internet in 

2015.10 Both groups were well above the national average of 15 

 

9 Federal Communications Commission. January 29, 2015. “FCC Finds 

US Broadband Deployment Not Keeping Pace.” Accessed at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331760A1.pdf 

on August 1, 2015. 

10 Anderson, Monica and Perrin, Andrew. July 2015. “15% of 

Americans Don’t Use the Internet. Who Are They?” Pew Research 

Center. Accessed at http://www.pewresearch.org/factIn 2015, the Pew 

Research Center reported 

that older, rural 

Americans were among 

the most likely not to use 

the Internet.
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-13

percent of Internet nonusers. As ARC works to improve Internet 

access in the Region, it must also work to help older, rural 

communities adopt Internet-based technology that can provide 

important economic, health, and educational benefits to 

communities. 

2.3 ARC’S TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 

2.3.1 Background and Purpose 

ARC’s telecommunications and technology program was built 

from the ARC Telecommunications Strategic Initiative adopted 

in November 2001. Congress authorized this initiative by 

stipulating that funds allocated may be used for 

telecommunications investment, and authorized a special 

telecommunications authority to oversee investments. The 

authorization suggested that $33 million of a larger funding 

authorization could be used11 for telecommunications and 

technology projects through FY 2006. States then selected how 

to designate funding allocations across all ARC programming, 

including economic development, health, and education. 

When Congress authorized this funding, it did emphasize 

telecommunications: “While much of the Nation is experiencing 

the benefits of access to technology and communications, 

Appalachia has extremely limited access to these assets.” 12

Unlike other kinds of infrastructure (e.g., highways, water, and 

sewer), telecommunications and technology infrastructure is 

provided by the private sector, “... but building advanced 

telecommunications infrastructure in low-density rural areas is 

difficult for private companies to achieve without subsidies to 

assist with construction costs.”

13 Thus, ARC embraced the role 

to help the Region gain access to this modern information 

highway as a means to “help the region achieve economic 

parity with the Nation.”14

 

tank/2015/07/28/15-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-arethey/ on August 1, 2015. 

11 Land, Guy. September 28, 2015. Chief of Staff, Appalachian 

Regional Commission. Personal email. 

12 Section 203 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act. 

13 Appalachian Regional Commission. “Telecommunications: 

Information Age Appalachia.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/telecom on July 26, 2015.

14 Ibid. Accessed on July 26, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-14

Two of ARC’s strategic plans (1997 and 2005) helped reinforce 

the grantmaking for this portfolio under evaluation (FY 2004 

through FY 2010). 

2.3.2 Program Design 

ARC’s program guidelines stress the importance of the grants in 

addressing the significant disparity in access to modern 

telecommunications and technology infrastructure with an 

emphasis on improving access in distressed counties. Funding 

was allocated “to increase affordable access to advanced 

telecommunications services, provide education and training, 

assist industry groups and businesses in preparing to use 

technology, and support entrepreneurial opportunities in these 

areas in the Region.”15 The initiative was designed to help 

citizen groups, educators, health care providers, and businesses 

with technological advancements. Grants help the Region 

achieve goals in four main areas:

1. Increase affordable access to advanced 

telecommunications, entrepreneurship, and 

management technologies or applications in the Region. 

2. Provide education and training in the use of 

telecommunications and technology. 

3. Develop programs to increase the readiness of industry 

groups and businesses in the Region to engage in 

electronic commerce. 

4. Support entrepreneurial opportunities for businesses in 

the information technology sector. 

Program guidelines strongly encouraged multiuse strategies 

and more importantly allowed states “maximum flexibility” in 

selecting approaches that best met their state’s needs.16 ARC 

requires that any projects it funds have matching grants of at 

least 50 percent of the total budget. ARC allows for a unique 

funding structure for projects with a substantial or primary 

impact on distressed counties. It grants up to 80 percent of a 

project’s total budget instead of the usual 50 percent, 

recognizing the challenge of raising local funding in 

economically distressed areas.17 Grantees use ARC funds to 

 

15 Appalachian Regional Commission. Revised 2011. ARC Project 

Guidelines. p. 25. Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/images/newsroom/publications/guidelines/ARC

ProjectGuidelines.pdf on July 28, 2015.

16 Ibid. Accessed on July 28, 2015. 

17 Ibid. Accessed on August 3, 2015. 
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-15

leverage potential and ongoing projects or to spark follow-on 

investment by other funders. 

As a means to these ends, ARC grants are highly diverse, 

encompassing different types of interventions along the 

telecommunications and technology spectrum and focusing on 

different parts of the community such as businesses, K–12 

schools, institutions of higher education, and local governments 

to name a few. A summary of ARC’s grant portfolio is described 

in Section 1.4. 

2.3.3 Grant Selection and Implementation 

Grant applications for the telecommunications and technology 

initiative were largely driven and nominated by the state ARC 

program managers and offices. After a formula-based 

calculation determined the amount of funding allocated to each 

ARC state, states then determined the projects to submit to 

ARC for approval to ensure proposed projects met guidelines. 

Underscoring the importance of the role of the states in 

identifying and determining projects for ARC investment, like 

many of its program areas, ARC did not release Requests for 

Proposal for this initiative. However, ARC reviewed all proposed 

grants from state offices and had the authority to either turn 

down a grant or make recommendations for improving it to 

align more with ARC’s mission and goals. In practice, ARC 

infrequently turned down applications and more commonly 

made recommendations in cases where grants would be outside 

of the scope of the program. 

In addition to the projects from individual states, the 

Commission awards a limited number of grants through 

approval by the Co-chairs’ Committee. Some examples of 

projects awarded by the Committee process include the Cochairs’ Committee Fund, regional initiatives identified by ARC 

partners, and use of special funds for a specific strategic 

objective. 

As part of the grant agreement, ARC requested that grantees 

list their projected outputs and outcomes in accordance with 

ARC performance measures. When grants close, each grantee 

submitted their final outputs and outcomes at the end of the 

grant period. ARC largely tracked grantees’ progress by 

monitoring these measures. ARC staff followed up with 

validation site visits for a few select grantees to deepen 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-16 

institutional knowledge about the performance of the grant 

portfolio.

Between FY 2004 and FY 2010, ARC used both an internal 

online database (ARC.net) and paper files to retain the records 

for each grant. 

2.4 SUMMARY OF THE ARC 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

GRANT PORTFOLIO

ARC invested $41 million from 2004 through 2010 in a total of 

322 telecommunications and technology grants. ARC funded 

projects ranging from local initiatives with a budget under 

$20,000 to large, multicounty projects with budgets over $2 

million. As Figure 2-4 shows, the majority of ARC funding ($15 

million) was allocated to education-related grants. Training and 

community development grants were $7.3 and $6.2 million, 

respectively. ARC dispersed remaining investments to health, 

local government, and business development projects.

On average, ARC grants comprised 41 percent of a project’s 

total funding, meaning that grant recipients leveraged 59

percent of add-on funding from local and state governments or 

ARC invested $41 million 

from 2004 through 2010 

in a total of 322 

telecommunications and 

technology grants. 

Figure 2-4. Allocation of 

ARC Funding to 

Telecommunications and 

Technology: FY 2004–FY 

2010
Section 2 — Introduction 

2-17

other federal funding sources. ARC investments averaged 

$132,000 per project and ranged from $2,192 to $2 million.18

Of all of the grants made during the funding period, 129 had a 

substantial or primary impact on distressed counties (41.6 

percent of the portfolio). 

Over the 2004 through 2010 time frame, ARC grants, at the 

close of the project, 

 served 5,176 businesses, 

 deployed 756,494 linear feet of broadband Internet, 

 served 151,141 participants, 

 served 285,994 patients, 

 created 52 plans or reports, 

 served 152,027 students, and 

 trained 22,510 workers. 

Refer to Section 5 of this report to review the detail of the ARC 

portfolio and its reported at-close impacts.19

2.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 

Building on this introduction, the evaluation is structured as 

follows. In Section 3 we provide an overview of the four main 

methods used to collect and analyze data for this evaluation. 

Next, we underpin this evaluation with a literature review 

(Section 4) that relays findings from research on the 

importance of broadband Internet for rural community 

economic development, how its role is growing, and the 

deployment of broadband Internet. In the next three sections 

we review the findings about ARC’s grants in its 

telecommunications and technology portfolio. We start with 

detailed descriptive statistics on the grants from 2004 through 

2010 (Section 5). We follow the project summary statistics 

with an analysis of the findings from the survey launched to all 

grantees (Section 6). We explore the nuances of ARC 

telecommunications and technology grants in-depth by 

reviewing 18 case studies the RTI team completed (Section 7). 

 

18 ARC made an in-kind contribution to one project “NC Medications 

Access and Review Program Expansion Pilot,” which appears as a 

$0 cash investment in its records. 

19 At-close refers to the closure of the ARC grant funding period, not 

necessarily the end of the project. In many cases, the funding 

period was just the pilot or start-up period for the project. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

2-18

In Section 8, we expand on all of the subsequent research to 

describe the hyperdynamic telecommunications policy 

environment and key policy issues and their potential impact on 

rural communities. We conclude the report with findings and 

recommendations in Section 9. 
3-1 

Methods 

The RTI team employed four methods to conduct this 

evaluation—a literature review, project portfolio analysis, 

survey of grant recipients, and case studies. The four methods 

delivered rich results that complement one another. In this 

section we present an overarching methodological approach 

and summarize each method in turn. Precise methodological 

details are described within the corresponding sections 

(Section 4, Literature Review; Section 5, Project Portfolio; 

Section 6, Survey; Section 7, Case Studies; and Section 8, 

Policy Implications).

The evaluation was guided by an overarching logic model. This 

logic model (Figure 3-1) shows how the ARC grants served as 

“inputs” that helped lead to desired outputs, outcomes, and 

long-term goals of increased capacity for community economic 

and regional development. 

On the left side of Figure 3-1, we show the beneficiary types 

of the ARC grants: local government, community development, 

training, health, education, and business development. These 

groups represent the students, community members, workers, 

and business owners that ARC grants are intended to support. 

The top of the diagram follows a typical logic model. Here we 

trace the inputs from the ARC telecommunications and 

technology grants and how this program was designed to lead 

to funded activities with associated performance measures 

resulting from these activities. These are described as outputs, 

or direct results from the inputs invested into the program. 

Following the figure to the right, we show the short-term

outcomes and desired long-term impacts with associated 

performance measures. All of these activities and measures 

culminate to lead to the ultimate goal of these efforts, which is 

displayed on the far right. We also account for environmental 

factors that influence the process around which these 
Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004

Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

–2010

3-2

Figure 3-1. Evaluation Logic Mode Business Development

Inputs Outputs (Scope of the Program/Project)

Activities by Function Performance Measures

Outcomes (Program/Project Goals)

Short-Term Performance Measures Medium- to Long-Term Impacts

• Businesses served

• Linear feet of fiber deployed

• Workers/trainees served

• Participants served

• Improved business climate through entrepreneurship, 

workforce development, access to markets

• More access to jobs as a result of improved business 

climate

• Higher rates of labor force participation

Increased Capacity for 

Economic, Community, and 

Regional Development

Education Health

Agents:

• ARC 

• Grant Recipients

• Third parties and 

co-funders

• States and other 

partners

Resources:

• Funding

• Expertise

• Existing assets

• Indirect broadband: Equipment for schools 

including laptops in the classroom, computers for 

schools, routers for schools, and smart boards 

• Applications of broadband: E-learning 

curriculums, online services for education in the 

general curriculum 

• Adoption of broadband: Education and training 

for K-12 in computer literacy, internet, and other 

technology connected to high speed internet 

• Patients served

• Students improved

• Telecom sites created

• Workers/trainees improved

• Participants improved

• Sharing of best practices with other school districts

• Better preparation for the workforce

• Lower rates of hospital readmission due to better 

treatment of chronic illnesses

• Lower expenses on emergency care in rural areas

Environmental Factors, organizational challenges, and external factors

• Students served

• Linear feet of fiber deployed

• Workers/trainees served

• Participants served

• Indirect broadband: Equipment to help improve 

accessibility in business parks and tourism centers

• Applications of broadband: e-commerce 

initiatives and websites for local businesses and 

business groups,

• Other Technology: Construction of physical 

infrastructure to support technology, including 

business incubator space, and physical capital 

such as a 3D printer

• Indirect broadband: Equipment for health services 

that requires a high speed internet connection such 

as telemedicine or remote monitoring devices

• Applications of broadband: Electronic medical 

records, electronic imaging systems 

• Businesses created

• Jobs created

• Jobs retained

• Telecom sites created

• Leverage private investment

• Workers/trainees improved

• Participants improved

• Patients improved

Target 

Beneficiary Training Community Development Local Government

• Workers/trainees served • Better preparation for the workforce

• Higher rates of labor force participation in skilled jobs

• Indirect broadband: Equipment for health services 

that requires a high speed internet connection such 

as telemedicine or remote monitoring devices

• Applications of broadband: Electronic medical 

records, electronic imaging systems 

• Workers/trainees improved

• Linear feet of fiber

• Students served

• Participants served

• Businesses served

• Improvements in public safety

• Better coordination between governments, citizens, 

and civic organizations

• Facilitation of new relationships

• Indirect broadband: Equipment for health services 

that requires a high speed internet connection such 

as telemedicine or remote monitoring devices

• Applications of broadband: Electronic medical 

records, electronic imaging systems 

• Households improved

• Telecom sites created

• Participants improved

• Participants served

• Plans/reports created

• Workers/trainees served

• Lower cost of service delivery to citizens

• Improved public safety

• Improved communication between local governments 

and citizens

• Implementation of strategic, long-term plans to 

improve business and quality of life

• Indirect broadband: Equipment for health services 

that requires a high speed internet connection such 

as telemedicine or remote monitoring devices

• Applications of broadband: Electronic medical 

records, electronic imaging systems 

Literature review, policy analysis

• Households improved

• Participants improved

• Programs implemented

• Telecom sites created

• Workers/trainees improved

Project Database, ARCNet

Survey

Case Studies

Framework of evaluation
Section 3 — Methods 

3-3 

grants were made. They are summarized below the logic 

model. At the very bottom of the diagram, we list the key 

research modes for assessing the ARC telecommunications and 

technology program. As the reader reviews each element of the 

evaluation, this logic model shows how these varied grants are 

working in unison toward one goal. It also provides a structure 

to the details that the analysis reveals within each method. 

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 

The literature review section is intended to look back at the last 

10 to 15 years of research related to broadband Internet 

deployment and its impact on communities. RTI began its 

research with a literature review to inform the rest of its 

findings, specifically to answer: 

 What is the role of broadband Internet in community 

economic development? 

 What were the needs for broadband Internet in the early 

2000s as ARC designed and began funding this 

initiative? 

 How is the role of broadband Internet growing? 

 How is broadband Internet deployed today? 

The RTI team was able to leverage the significant expertise of 

our consultants who are thought leaders in this field to deepen 

the understanding of the current state of knowledge that social 

scientists have about the connection between 

telecommunications infrastructure, technology adoption, and 

growth. 

3.2 PROJECT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY

In October 2014, RTI immediately began reviewing ARC’s 

project database that included descriptive data on 322 projects. 

After review, we either removed 12 grants from the database 

or consolidated them with other closely related projects, leaving 

a total of 310 projects from which we summarized descriptive 

statistics (refer to Appendix A for specific details). Building on 

the ARC database extracted from ARC.net, RTI and ARC filled 

data gaps by reviewing project reports and paper files to 

improve data quality. 

To help better illustrate the breadth of ARC grants and the 

different beneficiaries in Appalachian communities that the 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

3-4 

grants affected, RTI designed a framework to analyze the 

project portfolio data. First, we summarized projects and their 

performance by function, that is, how the grant related to the 

direct installation of broadband Internet and other Internet 

infrastructure, implementation of networking and ancillary 

equipment, applications taking advantage of Internet 

connectivity, and efforts to accelerate the adoption of 

broadband Internet. Recognizing that telecommunications and 

technology investments are highly dependent on a broad 

functional infrastructure, we lay out five functions to analyze 

ARC investments, some of which cut across multiple functions. 

Second, we describe the target beneficiaries of ARC grants. 

These range from students, local government officials, and 

patients to workers and community members. Our designations 

for these frameworks with their definitions and rationales are 

detailed in Section 5.1. 

3.3 SURVEY 

After calling all 310 grant contacts to verify the most 

appropriate contact and contact email or phone number, RTI 

launched a web survey April 13, 2015, to all 310 grantees in 

the consolidated portfolio. We called all contacts in the 

verification process that preferred that the survey be 

administered verbally. We closed the survey on June 30, 2015. 

We sent regular email reminders to grantees and, a month 

prior to survey close, reviewed preliminary response rates to 

identify underrepresented project types by observable 

characteristics such as geography, function, beneficiary, year of 

award, and size. We reached out with targeted follow-up phone 

calls to grantees with underrepresented observable 

characteristics. Out of the 310 grantees, we received 102 

complete responses (32.9 percent response rate) and 118 

complete and partially complete responses (38.0 percent 

response rate). Greater detail on survey methods is in 

Section 6.1. 

3.4 CASE STUDIES 

As part of the project portfolio summary and survey contact 

outreach, the RTI research team familiarized itself with the 

characteristics and common themes across projects. It initially 

screened approximately 40 projects for case studies using the 

following criteria: 
Section 3 — Methods 

3-5 

 Geographic distribution of grants: The case studies had 

to include at least one project from each state. 

 Functional framework and target beneficiary: The case 

studies had to include an approximately representative 

mix of functions and target beneficiaries. 

 Funding levels: The case studies had to contain a mix of 

small, medium, and large projects. 

 Impact on distressed areas: RTI paid close attention to 

projects with impact on economically distressed 

counties. 

 Gradations of success: RTI looked for projects with 

positive project performance data that met or exceeded 

expectations to understand factors for success. 

Additionally, RTI flagged some projects with low 

performance measures to understand less successful 

projects. 

From that list of 40, the RTI research team and consultants 

narrowed the list to 18 projects for case studies and created a 

case study protocol based on the observations from the 

database. The team contacted the stakeholders of the 18 

projects and performed site visits in May, June, and July of 

2015, and synthesized the findings in Section 7. Section 7.1

explains the case study methodology in greater detail. 

3.5 POLICY ISSUES 

While the literature review served as a retrospective look at 

past trends in telecommunications research, the policy 

implications section offers a forward-looking perspective on the 

present and future of broadband Internet and associated 

technology. RTI and its team sought to answer the following 

questions: 

 What are ongoing and future trends in the policy 

environment for broadband Internet deployment in rural 

America? 

 What trends in private-sector technology development 

will influence the future of telecommunications and 

technology in rural areas? 

RTI leveraged its literature review with the help of its team of 

consultants to identify the most important policy developments 

and technology changes as they relate to each functional area 

of broadband Internet investment and how it is relevant for 

ARC moving forward. 

4-1 

Literature Review

In the twenty-first century, access to broadband Internet 

telecommunications and technology is an essential component 

of community and economic development. Today more than 

ever, the rapidly changing landscape of telecommunications 

and the growing consequences of the digital divide in access 

and adoption of broadband Internet create serious challenges 

for communities that fall outside of the traditional markets for 

high-speed telecommunications service providers. Rural regions 

of Appalachia are no exception. This section provides a current 

overview of the literature on broadband Internet and its 

connections with economic development and technology 

adoption. We describe the rapidly evolving role of broadband 

Internet as experienced by different kinds of beneficiaries and 

how broadband Internet is currently deployed in rural 

communities. We conclude this section with an overview of the 

leading organizations involved in broadband Internet 

deployment for the rural United States. We also provide a full 

list of the literature cited in this section and others in 

Appendix B. 

4.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF BROADBAND 

INTERNET FOR COMMUNITY AND 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

The use of broadband Internet as a tool for economic and 

community development is grounded in economic theory on the 

role of access to markets in helping economies grow. Market 

access has been traditionally thought to be improved by 

geographic proximity, railroads, ports, or roads that made it 

easier to trade goods and services. Today, access to markets is 

also marked by high-speed communication networks and the 

ability to embrace global value chains that provide faster 

movement of goods and services and increased knowledge 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-2 

transfer virtually.20 Areas that lack access to broadband 

Internet are at a disadvantage because they are isolated from 

virtual markets and lack the other benefits of information 

sharing, including improved learning and training, health care, 

and public safety, that result from advanced 

telecommunications technology. 

A recent report underscores this linkage between broadband 

Internet and opportunity. In 2015, the White House Council of 

Economic Advisors released a report about the relationship 

between household income and levels of Internet use, 

repeating what researchers had said over the last two decades: 

higher income is related to higher levels of Internet adoption.21

On local and regional levels, there is evidence of a connection 

between broadband Internet access and economic outcomes. In 

2005, Lehr et al. showed a correlation between broadband 

Internet availability and economic outcomes at the zip code 

level. The report found a positive relationship between Internet 

availability and economic outcomes and also explained that 

other factors make it impossible to establish a causal 

relationship between one and the other.22 Various other 

studies, including Crandall et al.,23 Baller and Lide,24 and 

 

20 Baller, Jim and Lide, Casey. 2008. “Bigger Vision, Bolder Action, 

Brighter Future: Capturing the Promise of Broadband in North 

Carolina and America.” Accessed at 

https://ncbroadband.gov/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSI7Mj

AxMS8wMy8xOC8xMF81NV80NV81NDhfYnJvYWRiYW5kX3JlcG9ydF9

jb21wb3NpdGUucGRmBjoGRVQ/broadband_report_composite.pdf

on August 15, 2015. 

21 Dzieza, Josh and Bi, Frank. July 15, 2015. “Poverty, More than 

Geography, Determines who Gets Online in America” the Verge, 

Accessed at http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8965409/usinternet-access-map-white-house-report-broadband-inequality on 

August 13, 2015. 

22 Lehr, William et al. 2006. “Measuring Broadband’s Economic 

Impact.” Working Paper. 

23 Crandall, Robert W., Lehr, William, and Litan, Robert E. July 2007. 

“The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output and Employment: 

A Cross-Sectional Analysis of U.S. Data.” The Brookings Institution: 

Issues in Economic Policy, Number 6. 

24 Baller, Jim and Lide, Casey. 2008. “Bigger Vision, Bolder Action, 

Brighter Future: Capturing the Promise of Broadband in North 

Carolina and America.” Accessed at 

https://ncbroadband.gov/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSI7Mj

AxMS8wMy8xOC8xMF81NV80NV81NDhfYnJvYWRiYW5kX3JlcG9ydF9

jb21wb3NpdGUucGRmBjoGRVQ/broadband_report_composite.pdf

on August 15, 2015. 
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-3 

Kolko25 came to the same conclusion: broadband Internet 

penetration is correlated with positive economic outcomes, 

including income and employment, but it is challenging to prove 

a statistically significant causal relationship between broadband 

Internet availability and economic outcomes because of data 

limitations and inadequate research methods. 

Internationally, current research further strengthens the direct 

connection of broadband Internet to improved economic 

development. The International Telecommunications Union 

(ITU) and Katz in 2012 released a report on the impact of 

broadband Internet on economic outcomes on a global scale, 

showing how it was related to economic growth, productivity, 

employment, consumer surplus, and efficiency. Katz’s work 

outlined relevant country-level policies on a global scale and 

found that in nearly every case broadband Internet deployment 

was correlated with improved economic outcomes. Their 

findings are reinforced in Ericsson, an industry-funded study 

that showed broadband Internet speed, availability, and 

adoption are closely linked to economic outcomes including GDP 

and productivity.26 These studies and the research they cite 

show a range of incremental increases in GDP: a 10 percent 

increase in broadband Internet penetration is associated with 

GDP growth between 0.25 percent and 3.6 percent, depending 

on the study year and the region.27

Through different methods of evaluation, the research shows 

that expanded broadband Internet speed, availability, and 

adoption lead to improved economic outcomes. 

 

25 Kolko, Jed. January 2012. “Broadband and Local Growth.” Journal of 

Urban Economics 71(1). Accessed at 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119011000

490 on August 13, 2015. 

26 Ericsson, Arthur D. Little, and Chalmers University of Technology. 

September 2013. “Socioeconomic Effects of Broadband Speed.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/corporateresponsibility/2013/ericsson-broadband-final-071013.pdf on August 

18, 2015. 

27 Katz, Raul. April 2012. “Impact of Broadband on the Economy.” ITU 

Broadband Series. Accessed at https://www.itu.int/ITUD/treg/broadband/ITU-BB-Reports_Impact-of-Broadband-on-theEconomy.pdf on August 19, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-4 

4.2 THE NEED FOR INVESTMENT IN 

BROADBAND INTERNET IN APPALACHIA 

For this evaluation, it is useful to review the literature that 

informed ARC’s grantmaking for the 2004–2010 technology and 

telecommunications portfolio. In 2002 (and revised in 2004), 

Oden and Strover, in Links to the Future, explained the barriers 

to broadband Internet investment and adoption in Appalachia. 

They cited a lack of general infrastructure, low penetration 

rates of computers, high costs of installation, low competition, 

and low rates of digital literacy as just a few of the many 

challenges that Appalachia and other rural regions of the United 

States face in improving telecommunications and technology. 

They framed the challenges in the context of the 1996 

deregulation of the telecommunications industry, noting that 

private carriers alone were not providing an adequate level of 

service to keep the Region competitive.28 Section 8 presents a 

discussion of present-day policy issues. 

It is difficult to get an accurate picture of broadband Internet 

access and adoption rates in the United States because of the 

diverse data sources and data collection techniques.29 The best 

data for broadband Internet availability are collected by the 

FCC, which provides rough estimates of the levels of regional 

broadband Internet penetration secured from coverage and 

speed data reported on Form 477 by providers of high-speed 

wired and wireless telecommunications services. The form 

requires that providers report the advertised maximum 

bandwidth provided to customers.30 These self-reported 

numbers make up the basis of the National Broadband Map, a 

searchable tool that allows users to access information about 

broadband Internet availability across the country at the 

neighborhood level.31 According to the December 2013 data 

from Form 477, approximately 94 percent of U.S. residents had 

 

28 Oden, Michael and Strover, Sharon. June 2004. “2004 Update: Links 

to the Future: The Role of Information and Telecommunications 

Technology in Appalachian Economic Development.” ARC, 

University of Texas. 

29 The American Community Survey and Current Population Survey 

offer insight into a sample of U.S. residents’ Internet use patterns. 

The Pew Research Center also collects information about Internet 

use of U.S. adults over time. 

30 Federal Communications Commission. 2015. “Frequently Asked 

Questions: FCC Form 477.” Accessed at 

https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477faqs.pdf on August 14, 2015. 

31 National Broadband Map. Accessed at 

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about on August 25, 2015.

Broadband Internet 

infrastructure (access) is 

distinct from the ability 

and desire of people and 

communities to take 

advantage of it 

(adoption). Access 

without adoption is much 

less impactful.
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-5 

access to a high-speed Internet connection (defined then as 3 

Mbps download and 768 kbps upload speeds). The situation in 

Appalachia is more closely allied with the Form 477 data on 

rural regions that show only 80 percent of rural Americans have 

broadband Internet access at those speeds. These data, 

however, are self-reported and could be overstated because 

maximum advertised speeds tend to be much higher than 

actual download speeds. Additionally, the data do not account 

for adoption levels. Providing broadband Internet infrastructure 

(access) is distinct from the ability and desire of people and 

communities to take advantage of it (adoption). Access without 

adoption is much less impactful. As the Pew Research Center 

reported in 2015, only 78 percent of American adults in rural 

areas use the Internet, compared with 85 percent of suburban 

and urban residents.32 This statistic suggests that the 

challenges for adoption are more difficult in rural areas. 

Two additional phenomena to consider for rural communities in 

uptake of broadband Internet technology are described in the 

2010 FCC report “Broadband Adoption and Use in America.”

According to its survey in 2009, only 50 percent of rural 

residents had broadband Internet in their homes, partially due 

to a higher percentage of low-income and elderly residents. 

However, those who did have broadband Internet engaged in 

online shopping, media, and education at the same rate as 

suburban and urban residents, leading researchers to believe 

that given the same access, rural residents are just as likely to 

take advantage of Internet-based tools. The report also found 

that one in ten rural nonusers said that they have no access to 

broadband Internet service, indicating issues of access still 

persist.33

 

32 Pew Research Center. June 26, 2015. “Americans’ Internet Access: 

2000-2015.” Accessed at 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internetaccess-2000-2015/ on August 17, 2015. 

33 Horrigan, John. 2010. “Broadband Adoption and Use in America.” 

FCC Omnibus Broadband Initiative Working Paper Series Part I. 

Accessed at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC296442A1.pdf on August 17, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-6 

Gallardo, Strover, and Whitacre and the National Agricultural & 

Rural Development Policy Center analyzed how broadband 

Internet access contributed to economic health in rural areas. 

They analyzed Current Population Survey data alongside the 

FCC data available at the county level. Controlling for variables 

including education and job availability, they found that 

broadband Internet access was strongly correlated with 

economic outcomes. Rural counties with low levels of 

broadband Internet adoption had less favorable economic 

outcomes, even if they had similar levels of availability. The 

researchers argue that a simple increase in availability is 

insufficient to foster rural economic growth and measures to 

increase adoption are necessary to realize the potential of 

telecommunications-based economic development.34

More recently in 2015, the CREC and West Virginia University 

did a comprehensive study commissioned by ARC on the longterm demographic and economic shifts in the Appalachian 

Region. They identified an increasing convergence between 

broadband Internet and ARC’s other focus areas, including 

workforce development and health. In interviews with local 

stakeholders, the researchers found that stakeholders cited 

broadband Internet as a priority moving forward. They 

expressed a need to improve access, speeds, and affordability 

for local businesses, institutions, and households.35

 

34 Whitacre, Brian, Gallardo, Roberto, and Strover, Sharon. 2013. 

“Rural Broadband Availability and Adoption: Evidence, Policy 

Challenges, and Options.” National Agricultural and Rural 

Development Policy Center. Accessed at 

http://www.nardep.info/uploads/BroadbandWhitePaper.pdf on 

August 24, 2015. 

35 Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness and West Virginia 

University. February 2015. Appalachia Then and Now: Examining 

Changes to the Appalachian Region Since 1965. Prepared for the 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/AppalachiaThenAndNo

wCompiledReports.pdf on August 12, 2015. 

A simple increase in 

availability is insufficient 

to foster rural economic 

growth, and adoption 

measures are necessary 

to realize the potential of 

telecommunicationsbased economic 

development.
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-7 

4.3 THE NEW DIGITAL WORLD: THE EVOLVING 

ROLE OF BROADBAND INTERNET FOR THE 

APPALACHIAN REGION 

Despite the challenges associated with statistically measuring 

the impact of broadband Internet access on economic 

indicators, there is no doubt that broadband Internet’s role as a 

platform for economic and community development has been 

growing since the advent of the Internet and the widespread 

diffusion of computers. The Internet is no longer just a curiosity 

for the technically inclined. It pervades every aspect of our lives 

and is changing every field of work. 

The following subsections highlight recent evidence (both 

quantitative data points and qualitative anecdotes) of the 

growing importance of broadband Internet as a platform for 

 households, 

 businesses, and 

 community anchor institutions (including schools, health 

care providers, and local governments) 

We include literature when available that explains the benefits 

and impacts relevant to each group. In Table 4-1, we 

summarize how the three kinds of entities (households, 

businesses, and community anchor institutions) use broadband 

Internet to illustrate the ways in which broadband Internet 

pervades our lives and work. 

We expand on Table 4-1 to detail the growing presence and 

benefits of telecommunications and technology among each of 

the three beneficiary groups. The literature offers insight into 

the economic, educational, health, and social benefits that are 

associated with improvements in broadband Internet and 

telecommunications technology. 

4.3.1 Trends and Demonstrated Benefits for Households 

The Internet is at its root a communications platform, and it 

has proven to be of great social importance. The Internet is a 

platform for a wide range of applications such as using email 

and video chatting, searching for information, managing bills, 

purchasing goods and services, learning new skills, accessing 

entertainment, engaging with local communities and global 

social networks, interacting with governments, and engaging in 

There is no doubt that 

broadband Internet’s role 

as a platform for 

economic and community 

development has been 

growing since the advent 

of the Internet and the 

widespread diffusion of 

computers
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-8 

Table 4-1. Uses of Broadband Internet 

Beneficiary Uses of Broadband Internet

Households  Emails, messaging, video chatting

 Search engines

 Personal finance

 Online banking and bill pay

 Connected homes (e.g., HVAC systems, appliances, lighting)

 E-learning for adults

 Homework for school age children

 Shopping

 Entertainment

 Job applications

 Social networking

 The sharing economy

 Freelancing and entrepreneurship

 Interacting with businesses, schools, health care providers, and 

governments

Businesses  Emails, messaging, video conferencing

 Teleworking

 Marketing

 Business-to-consumer sales

 Business-to-business sales

 Recruiting/hiring

 Process management

 Data management

 Real-time monitoring of key performance indicators

 Connected devices and machines (Internet of Things/Industrial Internet 

of Things)36

 Supply chain management

 Cloud computing

 Innovation

 Training

(continued) 

 

36 For a primer on the Internet of Things, see Jankowski et al. 2014. 

“IoT Primer, The Internet of Things: Making sense of the next 

mega-trend.” Goldman Sachs. Accessed at 

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/outlook/internet-ofthings/iot-report.pdf on September 17, 2015. 
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-9 

Table 4-1. Uses of Broadband Internet (continued) 

Beneficiary Uses of Broadband Internet

Community Anchor Institutions

Education

(K–12, community 

colleges, 

Universities, 

training)

 Curriculum development

 Digital textbooks

 E-courses

 Distance learning

 District-level supplemental programs

 Statewide virtual schools

 Personalized digital learning

 Teacher training

 Teacher–parent and school–parent communication platforms

Health care 

providers

 Telehealth services

 Real-time patient consultation, diagnosis, and treatment

 Remote patient monitoring

 “Store-and-Forward”—technologies that store clinical information and

forward to another site for clinical evaluation37

 Electronic health records/electronic medical records (EMRs)

 Precision medicine

Local 

governments

 Geospatial data management for public services such as water systems

 E-services such as tax filing and permitting

 Library services

 Free computer-based Internet access

 Free bring-your-own-device public Wi-Fi

 E-books

 Video conferencing in judicial systems

 Public safety telecommunications systems

Source: RTI 

countless other applications. Households are using the Internet 

to enrich their lives socially, culturally, and economically. 

Email was one of the earliest applications of the Internet, and it 

is still a staple for most adults, although new forms of 

communication enabled by the Internet are growing, such as 

video chatting and social networking. In the last 10 years, the 

use of social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, 

WhatsApp, and Instagram has skyrocketed. In 2014, 74 

 

37 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “VA Telehealth Services.” 

Accessed at http://www.telehealth.va.gov/sft/ on August 23, 2015. 

In the last 10 years, the 

use of social networking 

sites such as Facebook, 

Twitter, WhatsApp, and 

Instagram has skyrocketed. In 2014, 74

percent of online adults 

use a social networking 

site compared with just 8

percent in 2005.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-10

percent of online adults use a social networking site compared 

with just 8 percent in 2005.38

The Internet is also frequently used for entertainment. Many 

households use video-streaming sites such as YouTube, Netflix, 

Hulu, and Amazon Video to watch TV shows, movies, news, and 

video clips. Many people stream music over the Internet using 

services such as Pandora and Spotify. Online gaming is another 

form of entertainment that integrates both entertainment and 

social aspects. Some people have even used online games as 

an economic tool for buying and selling digital items. 

As the importance of lifelong learning continues to grow in 

order to compete in the global economy, e-learning will play a 

vital role, and its use is on the rise. The growth of free and lowcost courses offered on the web by universities and private 

companies over platforms operated by edX and Coursera has 

opened up a world of opportunities for people around the globe. 

Massive open online courses are a potentially disruptive online 

learning model that challenges the status quo in higher 

education. Also, families benefit from sharing online educational 

experiences with their children, as seen in the research by Belo 

et al.39

In addition to its countless social and cultural applications, the 

Internet has proven to be an invaluable economic resource for 

many households. Ericsson analyzed data from 22,000 

respondents in developed and developing countries. Both 

broadband Internet access and speed upgrades were associated 

with income increases. The study points to several drivers of 

income that are linked to broadband Internet such as increased 

productivity, more flexible work arrangements, possibilities for 

 

38 Pew Research Center. Three Technology Revolutions. Accessed at 

http://www.pewinternet.org/three-technology-revolutions/ on 

August 20, 2015. 

39 Belo, Rodrigo, Ferreira, Pedro and Telang, Rahul. March 29, 2013. 

“Spillovers Effects of Wiring Schools with Broadband: The Critical 

Role of Children.” Accessed at 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032097 on 

August 24, 2015. 

The study points to 

several drivers of income 

that are linked to 

broadband Internet such 

as increased productivity, 

more flexible work 

arrangements, 

possibilities for homebased businesses, and 

more opportunities for 

social and cultural 

enrichment.
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-11

home-based businesses, and more opportunities for social and 

cultural enrichment.40

People use the Internet to access professional networks, search 

for job openings, and submit job applications. Broadband 

Internet has also facilitated the growth of home-based 

businesses and freelancing, which can provide a first or second 

source of income and more flexibility. Home-based businesses 

and freelancing are a growing source of income for many U.S. 

households, especially during economic downturns. The socalled “sharing economy” allows people to rent out their idle 

assets such as cars, spare bedrooms, and even lawnmowers 

over the Internet.41 The sharing economy is built on person-toperson Internet exchanges that drive business. For example, 

websites like AirBnB and Uber use the Internet as a platform to 

rent out local residences and pay drivers for local 

transportation. They have rapidly gained popularity in use. 

Price Waterhouse Cooper’s Digital Services group surveyed the 

general population in 2014 and found that 56 percent of the 

U.S. adult population was familiar with sharing economy 

products, and estimates show that the sharing economy has 

been growing rapidly.42,43 Individuals are also using the 

Internet to more effectively manage their households by using 

online banking services, paying bills, managing investment 

portfolios, tracking energy usage, doing online shopping, 

finding information about their community, and filing tax 

returns. As an illustrative example, 51 percent of U.S. adults 

banked online as of 2013, up from 46 percent of adults in 2010. 

One can easily recall a time 20 years ago when no one even 

 

40 Ericsson, Arthur D. Little, and Chalmers University of Technology. 

September 2013. “Socioeconomic Effects of Broadband Speed.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/corporateresponsibility/2013/ericsson-broadband-final-071013.pdf on August 

24, 2015. 

41 Economist. March 9, 2013. “The Rise of the Sharing Economy.” 

Accessed at http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-

internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy# on August 24, 

2015. 

42 Price Waterhouse Coopers. April 2015. “The Sharing Economy.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/technology/publications/assets/pwc

-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf on August 

24, 2015. 

43 Forbes. February 11, 2013. “Airbnb and the Unstoppable Rise of the 

Share Economy.” Accessed at 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/airbnb-andthe-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/ on August 24, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-12 

had the option of accessing banking services online. Online 

banking is one barometer for how well consumers trust online 

transactions. Of adults who are Internet users, online banking 

has penetrated the market by a factor of three between 2000 

and 2013. 

Given the range of social, cultural, and economic applications 

on the Internet and the value that households derive from 

these applications, it is not surprising that Internet use has 

grown tremendously over the last two decades. According to 

the Pew Research Center, 87 percent of American adults used 

the Internet in 2014, up from 14 percent in 1995 (see 

Figure 4-1).44 In the last decade, the trend has decelerated as 

the Internet begins to reach saturation for some groups; 

however, Internet use is still increasing.

Source: Pew Research Center. 

4.3.2 Trends and Demonstrated Benefits for Businesses

Economic development is often cited as a leading rationale for 

the development and deployment of local fiber optic and 

wireless high-speed networks, noting that this infrastructure is 

essential to attract businesses, strengthen local entrepreneurs, 

and create jobs. Baller et al. provided insight into the 

discussion of the use of broadband Internet technology as a 

catalyst for economic development. The authors cite studies 

 

44 Pew Research Center. No date. Internet Use over Time. Accessed at 

http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/internet-useover-time/ on August 24, 2015. 

Given the range of social, 

cultural, and economic 

applications on the Internet 

and the value that households derive from these 

applications, it is not 

surprising that Internet use 

has grown tremendously 

over the last two decades. 

According to the Pew 

Research Center, 87 percent

of American adults used the 

Internet in 2014, up from 14 

percent in 1995 

Figure 4-1. Internet Use 

over Time: Percentage 

of American Adults Who 

Use the Internet
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-13

that illustrate how broadband Internet leads to achievement of 

business goals; improvement of competitiveness and efficiency; 

and eventually more jobs, higher local production, and 

increased tax revenues for local governments. They note that it 

is difficult to quantify the impact of broadband Internet on local 

economic development and propose qualitative approaches to 

help understand the impacts of broadband Internet. The 

authors cite case studies and examples of business recruitment 

deals that failed because of a lack of high-speed 

telecommunications infrastructure in a region.45

Broadband Internet’s role as the preferred platform for 

businesses to communicate with customers and deliver services 

is growing. As more customers look to the Internet as a 

primary source of information, more and more businesses are 

developing websites and online advertisements to communicate 

with customers. Television and print have long been the 

dominant mediums for advertising products and services to 

customers; however, a recent forecast from Forrester Research 

indicates that digital ad spending could soon overtake TV 

advertisement spending in the United States.46 This 

demonstrates the growing role of broadband Internet as a 

platform for business and consumers alike. In addition to 

communicating with customers, businesses routinely use 

Internet-based technologies to conduct day-to-day business 

operations like recruiting new workers, managing data streams, 

managing and optimizing processes, monitoring key 

performance indicators in real time, and communicating across 

the supply chain. Businesses are also undergoing a major 

migration to cloud computing. This means that traditional 

enterprise hardware and software solutions are being 

supplanted by cloud-based solutions. Cloud computing reduces 

the upfront investment in dedicated servers by moving to more 

of a fee-for-service or subscription business model. Growth in 

cloud computing means that reliable, high-speed Internet 

 

45 Baller, Jim, Hovis, Joanne and Stelfox, Ashley. 2014. “The Killer App 

for Local Fiber Networks.” Accessed at 

http://www.bbpmag.com/MuniPortal/EditorsChoice/1114editorschoi

ce.php on January 6, 2015. 

46 Peterson, Tim. “Digital to Overtake TV Ad Spending in Two Years, 

Says Forrester.” Advertising Age. Accessed at 

http://adage.com/article/media/digital-overtake-tv-ad-spendingyears-forrester/295694/ on August 25, 2015. 

Businesses routinely use 

Internet-based technologies to conduct day-today business operations 

like recruiting new 

workers, managing data 

streams, managing and 

optimizing processes, 

monitoring key performance indicators in real 

time, and communicating 

across the supply chain
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-14

access will become even more important for basic business 

functions. 

Beyond being a platform for conducting business, information 

and communication technology (ICT) is a driver of job growth 

in the United States. According to Shapiro and Mathur (2011), 

ICT contributed to 7.1 percent of the U.S. GDP in 2009, and 

jobs in the industry paid a salary 80.6 percent higher than the 

national average. The industry saw the fastest gains in 

employment and was responsible for the largest share of 

productivity gains in the United States.47 They also point out 

that these jobs require unique skill sets and emphasize the 

need to train workers for new jobs in ICT. 

As alluded to in the household section, in addition to ICT jobs, 

home-based businesses are an increasing component of the 

U.S. economy. The Strategic Networks Group (SNG) found that, 

in 2010, nearly one-third of North Carolina households were 

engaged in some type of home-based business. SNG has 

documented similar findings in other states. The most frequent 

types of home-based businesses included professional and 

technical services, arts, entertainment, recreation, and retail 

trade. Home-based businesses using broadband Internet 

emerged during the Great Recession as an alternative for 

professionals who had lost their jobs, and many of those 

surveyed expressed interest in starting a home-based business 

in the future.48

4.3.3 Trends and Demonstrated Benefits for Community 

Anchor Institutions 

The FCC defines community anchor institutions as “schools, 

libraries, hospitals and other medical providers, public safety 

entities, institutions of higher education, and community 

support organizations that facilitate greater use of broadband 

Internet by vulnerable populations, including low-income, the 

 

47 Shapiro, Robert and Mathur, Aparna. September 2011. “The 

Contributions of Information and Communication Technologies on 

American Growth, Productivity, Jobs, and Prosperity.” Accessed at 

http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/Report_on_ICT_and_Innova

tion-Shapiro-Mathur-September8-2011-1.pdf on August 19, 2015. 

48 Strategic Networks Group. 2011. “e-NC and SNG Study Reveals 

Types of Home-Based Businesses.” Accessed at 

http://www.sngroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SNG-Quickbyte-Home-based-businesses-findings-Jul2011.pdf on August 25, 

2015. 

Growth in cloud 

computing means that 

reliable, high-speed 

Internet access will 

become even more 

important for basic 

business functions.

In 2010, nearly one-third 

of North Carolina 

households were engaged 

in some type of homebased business.
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-15

unemployed, and the aged.”

49 The FCC has a statutory charge 

to ensure that community anchor institutions have access to 

advanced telecommunications.

We review three kinds of community anchor institutions: 

 schools 

 health care providers 

 local governments (e.g., local government agencies, 

libraries, local judicial systems, public safety entities) 

Schools 

Online learning in K–12 and higher education institutions 

continues to grow. Teachers use a mix of traditional classroom 

instruction supplemented by digital tools such as online 

curricula, online videos, online assessments, and digital 

textbooks. Distance learning programs are also on the rise, 

ranging from district-level supplemental programs to statewide 

supplemental programs to fully fledged, statewide virtual 

schools and online degree programs. 

Harris Interactive and the FCC surveyed schools and libraries 

participating in the E-rate program (E-rate is discussed in 

Section 4.4.1), which cited deficiencies in the broadband 

Internet connections available to them: 80 percent of 

institutions surveyed said their needs are not met. The majority 

intended to expand their use of digital textbooks, wireless 

connections, and new devices for educational purposes. Schools 

participating in the program were concerned that their existing 

telecommunications and technology infrastructure was 

insufficient to meet anticipated demand.50

 

49 Federal Communications Commission. June 1, 2012. “WCB Cost 

Model Virtual Workshop 2012 Community Anchor Institutions.” 

Accessed at https://www.fcc.gov/blog/wcb-cost-model-virtualworkshop-2012-community-anchor-institutions on August 24, 2015. 

50 Federal Communications Commission. 2010. “2010 E-Rate Program 

and Broadband Usage Survey: Report.” FCC Wireline Competition 

Bureau. Accessed at 

http://transition.fcc.gov/010511_Eratereport.pdf on August 24, 

2015.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-16

The growth of broadband Internet use in schools supports a 

range of benefits. Research indicates that online learning tools, 

in combination with traditional classroom settings, can help 

students master material more quickly. Lovett et al. found that 

students in a statistics course at Carnegie Mellon University 

that used traditional in-class instruction in combination with 

web-based instruction learned a full semester’s worth of 

material in half the time as those not exposed to online 

materials.51

Online learning tools also improve students’ educational 

experience and increase the likelihood of digital adoption at 

home. Belo et al. analyzed the spillover effects of advanced 

classroom technology on families in Portugal. They found that 

families with children in schools with broadband Internet 

technology were 20 percent more likely to use Internet 

applications at home. They argued that this improved 

telecommunications and technology in the classroom causes 

more knowledge transfer between children and parents, as well 

as a greater demand among parents with school-aged children 

for broadband Internet telecommunications at home. They 

showed ripple effects in both the educational outcomes of the 

students and in the Internet adoption of the families.52

Knowledge-based jobs and businesses that depend on the 

Internet are growing, and research shows that students and 

their families benefit from improvements in access and 

adoption in the classroom. As mentioned in Shapiro and 

Mathur, improved broadband Internet telecommunications 

education and access contribute to a strong workforce in ICT. 

Their research showed that jobs in ICT had higher wages and 

higher expectations for future growth.53 Broadband Internet 

 

51 Lovett, Marsha, Meyer, Oded, and Thille, Candace. 2008. “The Open 

Learning Initiative: Measuring the Effectiveness of the OLI Statistics 

Course in Accelerating Student Learning.” 

52 Belo, Rodrigo, Ferreira, Pedro, and Telang, Rahul. March 29, 2013. 

“Spillovers Effects of Wiring Schools with Broadband: The Critical 

Role of Children.” Accessed at 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032097 on 

August 24, 2015. 

53 Shapiro, Robert and Mathur, Aparna. September 2011. “The 

Contributions of Information and Communication Technologies on 

American Growth, Productivity, Jobs, and Prosperity.” Accessed at 

http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/Report_on_ICT_and_Innova

tion-Shapiro-Mathur-September8-2011-1.pdf on August 19, 2015. 

Schools participating in the 

program were concerned 

that their existing 

telecommunications and 

technology infrastructure 

was insufficient to meet 

anticipated demand
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-17

and telecommunications technology in schools will contribute to 

a more educated and competitive workforce in the future. 

Health Care Providers 

Health care has been moving from a paper-based environment 

to digital technology in all aspects of its operations. Patient 

records are electronic, most business functions including 

insurance are electronic, and medical imaging is typically stored 

digitally. This opens up a new world of possibilities for rural 

health care. Hospitals are increasingly using broadband Internet 

networks to deliver innovative telehealth services such as realtime patient care (including consultation, diagnosis, and 

treatment), remote patient monitoring (specifically for chronic 

diseases), and “store-and-forward” technologies that store 

clinical information and forward it to another site for clinical 

evaluation. For example, medical images (i.e., X-rays, CT 

scans, and MRIs) can be sent to remote experts for diagnosis. 

Recent improvements in sensors together with their declining 

costs is enabling real-time, digital collection of patient data 

over long distances. All of these applications require an 

emphasis on privacy and security and reliable high-speed 

broadband Internet networks. 

Research case studies show that broadband Internet can 

improve operational efficiency for health care providers and 

health systems. Additionally, a growing body of research 

demonstrates that telehealth services enabled by broadband 

Internet can improve the quality and decrease the cost of 

patient care. For example, Castro et al. argued that telehealth 

services have the potential to provide health care to people 

with chronic illnesses at a lower cost and with a lower 

readmission rate.54 A pilot program by the Veteran’s Health 

Administration saw a 51 percent reduction in hospital 

readmissions for heart failure using telemedicine services.55

Another example is the North Carolina Telepsychiatry network, 

which was established in 2013. Nearly half of the state’s 

hospitals were participating as of January 2015; the remainder 

are expected to join in the near future. The use of 

telepsychiatry resulted in less waiting time for patients in 

 

54 Castro, Daniel, Miller, Ben, and Nager, Adams. 2014. “Unlocking the 

Potential of Physician-to-Patient Telehealth Services.” Accessed at 

http://www2.itif.org/2014-unlocking-potential-physician-patienttelehealth.pdf on August 19, 2015. 

55 Ibid. 

Hospitals are increasingly using broadband 

Internet networks to 

deliver innovative 

telehealth services such 

as real-time patient care 

(including consultation, 

diagnosis, and treatment), 

remote patient monitoring 

(specifically for chronic 

diseases), and “storeand-forward” technologies that store clinical 

information and forward 

it to another site for 

clinical evaluation.

A growing body of 

research demonstrates 

that telehealth services 

enabled by broadband 

Internet can improve the 

quality and decrease the 

cost of patient care.

A pilot program by the 

Veteran’s Health 

Administration saw a 51

percent reduction in 

hospital readmission for 

heart failure using 

telemedicine services.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-18

hospital emergency departments and a lower likelihood of 

returning for treatment. Involuntary commitments to state 

psychiatric hospitals have also decreased.56

Local Governments 

Local governments have been digitizing operations and using 

broadband Internet to streamline operations, improve services, 

and increase reach. As cloud computing grows, local 

governments are starting to move data storage from local 

servers to third-party servers at reduced costs. Other examples 

of e-services include the collection of taxes, geospatial mapping 

of municipal waste and water assets, and the provision of 

library services. 

Libraries, a critical community anchor institution, have 

experienced rapid growth in connectivity. Today, nearly all 

public libraries provide public access to computers and the 

Internet, often for individuals who do ’not have access to 

broadband Internet at home. They are also increasingly 

equipped to provide wireless access for those who prefer to 

bring their own device. According to the American Library 

Association, 18 percent of library outlets offered wireless 

Internet connectivity in 2004. By 2006, that figure was up to 54 

percent and by 2011 it stood at 86 percent.57 However, many 

libraries believe that their Internet connection speeds are 

insufficient, and there has been a strain on bandwidth as more 

people flocked to libraries for their Internet needs during the 

economic downturn. 

People are not only coming to the library to access the Internet, 

but patrons are accessing more of their books digitally as well. 

As of 2012, 76 percent of libraries offered access to ebooks.58

 

56 American Hospital Association. January 2015. Trendwatch. The 

Promise of Telehealth for Hospitals, Health Systems and Their 

Communities. 

57 American Library Association and the College of Information, Florida 

State University. 2007. Libraries Connect Communities: Public 

Library Funding & Technology Access Study 2006-2007. Accessed at 

http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/ini

tiatives/plftas/previousstudies/0607/finalreport.pdf. 

http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/ini

tiatives/plftas/2010_2011/plftas11-execsummary.pdf on August 24, 

2015. 

58 American Library Association. The State of America’s Libraries: A 

Report from the American Library Association 2013. Accessed at 

http://www.ala.org/news/sites/ala.org.news/files/content/2013-

State-of-Americas-Libraries-Report.pdf on August 24, 2015. 

As cloud computing 

grows, local governments 

are starting to move data 

storage from local 

servers to third-party 

servers at reduced costs.

Eighteen percent of 

library outlets offered 

wireless Internet 

connectivity in 2004. By 

2006, that figure was up 

to 54 percent and by 2011 

it stood at 86 percent. 

However, many libraries 

believe that their Internet 

connection speeds are 

insufficient, and there has 

been a strain on bandwidth as more people 

flocked to libraries for 

their Internet needs 

during the economic 

downturn.
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-19

Local judicial systems and public safety agencies also benefit 

from access to broadband Internet through enhanced 

telecommunications capabilities and efficiency gains as several 

projects in ARC’s grant portfolio demonstrated. Police, fire 

fighters, and emergency management teams are beginning to 

replace voice radios with advanced mobile devices capable of 

sending and receiving video and other complex digital data. 

Communities will likely collaborate on efforts to expand their 

digital infrastructure to support public safety. 

Despite the uptake of local governments using broadband 

Internet to enhance service provision, many municipalities do 

not have consistent proven approaches for expanding 

broadband Internet. Feser, Horrigan, and Lehr point out that 

there is “little known on appropriate public interventions (how 

and when to intervene); regulatory reform, subsidization, 

public–private partnership models of deployment and service 

delivery, technical assistance to would-be providers, 

information provision, and demand aggregation, etc.”

59 We 

delve more into these important issues for local, state, and 

federal governments in Section 8. 

4.3.4 Summary 

Given the increasing role of broadband Internet as a platform 

for consuming information, managing information, conducting 

business, developing innovative services, and improving the 

delivery of government services, adequate access to broadband 

Internet is essential for participating in modern society. In fact, 

broadband Internet connectivity is increasingly becoming a 

public good similar to electricity lines, roads, and water and 

sewer systems. 

As applications that use broadband Internet become ever more 

ubiquitous and sophisticated, the digital divide between urban 

and rural areas (such as the Appalachian Region) will not be 

defined solely in terms of access to the Internet, but rather in 

terms of having access to adequate Internet speeds that enable 

more sophisticated types of applications. Adoption through 

education and local anchor institutions plays a critical role to 

 

59 Feser, Ed, Horrigan, John, and Lehr, William. December 2012. 

“Symposium Report: Findings from the Research Roundtable on the 

Economic and Community Impact of Broadband.” Accessed at 

http://works.bepress.com/edwardfeser/34/ on August 24, 2015. 

As of 2012, 76 percent of 

libraries offered access to 

ebooks.

Despite the uptake of 

local governments using 

broadband Internet to 

enhance service 

provision, many 

municipalities do not 

have consistent proven 

approaches for expanding 

broadband Internet.

The digital divide 

between urban and rural 

areas (such as the 

Appalachian Region) will 

not be defined solely in 

terms of access to the 

Internet, but rather in 

terms of having access to 

adequate Internet speeds 

that enable more 

sophisticated types of 

applications
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-20

increasing the benefits of broadband Internet for students, 

families, and households. 

This discussion on the trends affecting the use of broadband 

Internet is coupled with text describing key policies affecting 

access and absorption of broadband Internet in Section 8. 

4.4 DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND INTERNET IN 

RURAL AMERICA 

Broadband Internet deployment and adoption in rural America 

is a uniquely dynamic environment. Traditional 

telecommunications providers have a clear profit incentive and 

seek to reach the highest number of people in dense urban 

areas. In rural areas, however, high costs of infrastructure 

deployment due to challenging terrain, lower population 

density, and lower median income among residents make it 

more costly and risky to invest in telecommunications 

infrastructure. An array of government programs and nonprofits 

work in the area of rural telecommunications development to 

complement private telecommunications companies because of 

the important spillover benefits that broadband Internet has on 

education, health, and economic development. 

Understanding the importance of rural broadband Internet 

access, the federal government has a variety of programs to 

fund investments in underserved communities, particularly in 

rural areas. These programs include E-rate and the Connect 

America Fund (CAF) from the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC), programs from the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department 

of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act invested heavily 

in telecommunications pilot projects through the Broadband 

Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), the NTIA’s State 

Broadband Initiatives (SBI), and the USDA Rural Utilities 

Service Broadband Investment Program and 

Telecommunications Loan and Grant Program. These federal 

programs interact with private service providers, state 

governments, and other organizations to create the current 

rural broadband Internet ecosystem in the United States. 

The section below briefly describes the forces shaping the 

broadband Internet ecosystem and the programs and initiatives 

with a rural focus to provide a stronger understanding of the 

In rural areas, ... high 

costs of infrastructure 

deployment due to 

challenging terrain, 

lower population density, 

and lower median income 

among residents make it 

more costly and risky to 

invest in telecommunications infrastructure.
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-21

broader policy environment because ARC is one of many 

organizations working to expand broadband Internet to 

underserved and rural communities. 

4.4.1 The Rural Broadband Internet Ecosystem 

Modern telecommunications adoption requires networks, 

devices, and applications, all of which work together to create a 

positive feedback loop, as seen in the FCC’s 2010 National 

Broadband Plan. The Broadband Plan “sets out a roadmap for 

initiatives to stimulate economic growth, spur job creation and 

boost America’s capabilities in education, healthcare, homeland 

security and more.”

60 Within its plan, the FCC outlined the 

existing broadband Internet ecosystem, breaking down the 

main forces shaping the sector at the time. Figure 4-2 depicts 

the FCC’s model of forces driving the broadband Internet 

ecosystem. 

Source: FCC 

 Within this model, the FCC briefly explains how the rural 

ecosystem is distinct in availability of networks, levels of 

adoption and utilization, and access to devices to 

connect to networks. 

 

60 Federal Communications Commission. 2010. “National Broadband 

Plan.” Accessed at https://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan on 

August 12, 2015. 

Figure 4-2. Forces 

Shaping the 

Broadband 

Ecosystem in the 

United States
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-22

 Networks: 99 percent of physician-run health care 

organizations in 2010 had access to high-speed 

telecommunications, only 71 percent of rural health 

clinics had access to the same level of service. 

Furthermore, rural areas in general are less likely to 

have access to more than one wireline broadband 

Internet provider than other areas, indicating that 

competition in rural areas could be limited. 

 Devices: In 2010, computers were the majority of 

connected devices, but the FCC recognized that mobile 

devices would likely outpace computer sales. Rural areas 

must have infrastructure to handle mobile rural devices.

 Adoption and Utilization: People who are least likely to 

use the Internet tend to be less educated, have less 

income, and live in a rural area. Additionally, those over 

65 years old are less likely than any other age group to 

use the Internet. 

With these considerations in mind, the FCC designed its 

Broadband Plan to incorporate these distinctions to help ensure 

that broadband Internet infrastructure is deployed effectively 

nationally so that every American, regardless of geographic 

location, has access to broadband Internet capability. 

4.4.2 Actors in the Rural Broadband Internet Ecosystem 

Multiple government and nongovernment actors work in the 

field of rural broadband Internet. The current landscape in rural 

telecommunications in the United States includes the FCC, 

federal programs under the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC), other federal agencies, and a series of 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), nonprofits, and other 

organizations that advocate on behalf of rural broadband 

Internet deployment. Table 4-2 lists key members of the 

ecosystem and the role they play in rural telecommunications 

as of 2015. Understanding the array of organizations working to 

accelerate broadband Internet deployment will help ARC 

recognize its role within the ecosystem and how to be most 

impactful in its grantmaking through enhanced coordination 

with the ecosystem. 

We expand on some of these key actors and relevant programs 

below. 
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-23

Table 4-2. Actors in the Rural Broadband Internet Ecosystem 

Organization Purpose

FCC Regulates interstate and international communication via radio, 

television, wire, satellite, and cable in the United States

Federal Organizations under the USAC

USAC Schools and Libraries: 

E-rate

Lowers costs of high-speed telecommunications service to schools 

and libraries

USAC Rural Health Care Lowers costs of high-speed telecommunications service to rural 

health care clinics

USAC Lifeline Provides discounts for basic, local telephone service for lowincome households

USAC High Cost/CAF Helps telecommunications companies reach customers in hard-toserve rural areas

Other Federal Organizations

U.S. Department of Commerce Works closely with NTIA to design and implement 

telecommunications grant programs for business development 

purposes

NTIA An executive branch agency that advises the President on 

telecommunications and information policy issues. Responsible for 

the BTOP and other grant programs, as well as the National 

Broadband Map

HUD As of 2015, HUD’s ConnectHome program is a pilot to expand 

high-speed broadband Internet in low-income houses in urban 

and tribal areas across the United States 

USDA The Rural Utilities Service of USDA administers the Rural 

Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the 

Broadband Investment Program, which target low-income rural 

areas for broadband Internet infrastructure investment

U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Involved in physical deployment of fiber and broadband Internet 

infrastructure along roads and highways

Broadband Opportunity Council Works in the office of the President with the NTIA to better 

coordinate broadband Internet efforts in the United States

NGOs, Nonprofits, and Other Organizations

Rural Telecom Conference A national nonprofit that connects people, businesses, 

governments, and organizations to improve rural broadband 

Internet service

Coalition for Local Internet 

Choice (CLIC)

A nonprofit that advocates on behalf of empowering local 

government through “local choice”: a legal structure that allows 

for municipal broadband Internet networks 

Rural Assembly A network of rural organizations and individuals that advocate on 

behalf of rural issues including broadband Internet

Institute of Medicine A part of the National Academy of Sciences and an advocate for 

telemedicine in rural areas

Private Companies

Various In collaboration with government, nonprofits, and other 

organizations, private companies are working to overcome 

barriers to broadband Internet deployment in rural areas and are 

offering discounts to low-income residents in some markets
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-24

Universal Service Administrative Company 

The largest share of public funding for broadband Internet 

comes from programs through the USAC, an independent notfor-profit corporation designated by the FCC as administrator of 

universal service. USAC works to bridge the digital divide in 

rural areas through a series of government programs and 

subsidies. It is funded through fees on telecommunications 

service providers and is intended to provide a universal base 

level for Internet access. It runs a series of programs through 

the funds it raises, principally through the Universal Service 

Fund (USF) financed by a tax on telecommunications service 

bills; these programs include the CAF, the E-rate Program, the 

Rural Healthcare Support Program, and Lifeline, each of which 

is explained below in more detail. 

USAC CAF: Phase II 

The CAF was born out of the USF’s High Cost Program to bring 

both voice and broadband Internet service to underserved rural 

areas. It is the largest program that provides subsidies to 

telecommunications providers in rural areas. 

USAC Schools and Libraries Program: E-rate 

The Schools and Libraries Program, better known as E-rate, 

began in 1997 to lower Internet access costs for schools and 

libraries and better improve their connectivity to the digital 

world. It is funded by the USF, a mix of subsidies and fees from 

the FCC. The E-rate program allows schools to receive subsidies 

between 20 and 90 percent of the total cost of Internet service. 

The E-rate subsidy percentage increases with the percentage of 

students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch.61

The program has contributed to increased uptake of the 

Internet by schools and libraries. The share of classrooms with 

Internet access jumped from 14 percent in 1997 to 94 percent 

in 2005. In 2014, the FCC updated the E-rate program to 

modernize the policy and adapt to new technology. Some of the 

changes include 

 

61 Federal Communications Commission. July 11, 2014. “Summary of 

the E-Rate Modernization Order.” Accessed at 

https://www.fcc.gov/page/summary-e-rate-modernization-order on 

August 17, 2015. 
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-25

 deemphasizing wired connections to classrooms and 

legacy technologies and placing a greater emphasis on 

high-speed fiber connections to schools and seamless 

Wi-Fi inside the building and 

 streamlining and simplifying the application process. 

USAC Rural Health Care Support 

The USAC provides support to rural health care providers and 

consortia through several programs, including the Healthcare 

Connect Fund. USAC Rural Health Care programs provide 

discounted equipment and service so that the costs of 

telecommunications for rural health providers is more in line 

with the costs of their urban counterparts.62

USAC Lifeline 

The USAC provides financial support to help eligible 

telecommunications carriers offer modest discounts for 

telecommunications services to low-income consumers. 

FCC Rural Broadband Internet Experiments 

In 2014, the FCC began a pilot project for technology 

transitions in rural communities. The program allocated $100 

million from the CAF to deploy next-generation 

telecommunications technology in high-cost rural areas, 

including fiber-to-the-premises investments that are often too 

costly for rural customers.63 The program is intended as a pilot 

for potential future investments in high-capacity fiber Internet 

connections in traditionally underserved areas. 

NTIA BTOP 

The BTOP emerged as part of the American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act, and between 2009 and 2014 it funded $4.7 

billion in broadband Internet adoption projects, public computer 

centers, Internet infrastructure projects, and SBI projects.64 In 

 

62 Federal Communications Commission. September 2015. “Rural 

Health Care Program.” Accessed at 

https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rural-health-care on August 17, 

2015. 

63 Federal Communications Commission. July 11, 2014. “Rural 

Broadband Experiments Order.” Accessed at 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order

on August 17, 2015. 

64 National Telecommunications & Information Administration. “About 

BroadbandUSA.” Accessed at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/about on 

August 14, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-26

2014, ASR Analytics delivered a comprehensive analysis of the 

BTOP program and found the following: 

 BTOP communities had a 2 percent higher growth in 

broadband Internet availability compared with non-BTOP 

communities. The program observed the highest growth 

in rural areas, with an impact of nearly 5 percent. 

 Per ASR’s economic modeling, the additional 

infrastructure could contribute to as many as 22,000 

jobs. 

 Prices of service to community institutions declined by 

an average of 95 percent, and service increased 

sevenfold.65

As of 2015, BTOP is closed, but the experience of BTOP 

grantees serves as further evidence that federal investments in 

broadband Internet are closely related to economic growth and 

have an important return on investment in the long run, 

particularly in rural areas. 

State Broadband Internet Initiatives 

The NTIA launched the SBI in 2009 under the American 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act to incorporate state-level 

broadband Internet initiatives into federal planning and 

information sharing. It awarded a total of $293 million to 56 

grantees, representing all 50 states, five territories, and the 

District of Columbia. The grants went to a variety of 

government and nonprofit institutions to engage in research 

and strategic planning for future broadband Internet 

investments in their respective states.66

Broadband Opportunity Council 

Recently announced in March 2015, the Broadband Opportunity 

Council brings together 25 federal agencies to help the 

executive branch better understand community needs for 

broadband Internet. The Council, which is co-chaired by the 

USDA and Department of Commerce, will also work on 

 

65 ASR Analytics. 2014. National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration Broadband Technology Opportunities Program 

Evaluation Study. Final Report: Social and Economic Impacts of the 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/asr_final_report.pdf on August 17, 

2015.

66 National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 2010. 

“State Broadband Initiative.” Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/SBDD?page=1 on August 13, 2015. 
Section 4 — Literature Review 

4-27

identifying regulatory barriers that constrain broadband 

Internet deployment. Public comments have been gathered to 

inform the work of the council. 

Given the complexity of the rural broadband Internet 

ecosystem, ARC can play an important coordinating role in 

helping communities in the Appalachian Region navigate this 

environment and how to best leverage all of these assets. 

This collection of organizations underscores the highly dynamic 

nature of entities working to supply broadband Internet at 

adequate speeds and prices so that adoption can increase. 

4.5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

This contemporary literature review reveals the degree to which 

activities, opportunities, and needs of broadband Internet are 

complex and evolving rapidly. ARC and others must stay 

attuned to this hyper-dynamic realm of activity to ensure they 

are directing resources to have maximum impact over the long 

term. 

Broadband Internet plays an essential role in community and 

economic development in the twenty-first century. Modern 

business, government, education, and health care all require a 

reliable, affordable high-speed Internet connection to operate 

effectively. The role of broadband Internet in our society is 

evolving as it becomes integrated with our daily lives and its 

applications grow ever more sophisticated. Internet use is on 

the rise because there are social, cultural, and economic 

benefits that can result from increased adoption. 

Unfortunately, rural communities have some of the lowest rates 

of broadband Internet penetration and usage because of a mix 

of factors such as cost of service, access to service, and 

concerns about digital literacy. However, rural communities 

stand to gain the most from broadband Internet because it 

levels the playing field between urban and rural areas. 

A complex ecosystem of programs is in place at the state and 

federal levels to help overcome the barriers to rural broadband 

Internet deployment and provide rural communities access and 

ability to adopt broadband Internet and advanced 

telecommunications technology to improve economic outcomes, 

health, governance, education, and quality of life. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

4-28

In Section 5, we review ARC’s efforts to help the Appalachian 

Region access and adopt telecommunications and technology 

through its FY 2004 through FY 2010 grant portfolio. We return 

to some of these issues discussed in the literature review in 

Section 8 where we identify key policy issues for broadband 

Internet in the future. We offer ARC and others a summary of 

issues to consider as various interested parties seek to extend 

access, affordability, and quality broadband Internet to rural 

America. 
5-1 

Grant Portfolio 

Analysis 

The following summary of ARC’s telecommunications and 

technology grant portfolio from FY 2004 through FY 2010 

provides an excellent overview of the program by describing 

the grants by attributes such as FY, geography, function, 

beneficiary, scale of the project, and the proportion of grants 

going to distressed counties. We also describe the performance 

of the grants during the grantmaking period by comparing 

performance measures at the close of the grant with the 

projected performance measures67 that were established as 

goals at the beginning of the grant.

As we discuss, ARC’s portfolio of grants served hundreds of 

thousands of people in the Appalachian Region by serving 

businesses, patients, students, and workers among others. 

Table 5-1 summarizes the extent to which ARC 

telecommunications and technology grants served the people of 

Appalachia. 

Outputs

Number

At Close

Grants with Output as 

a Performance Measure

Businesses served 5,176 36

Linear feet of fiber 756,494 10

Participants served 151,141 61

Patients served 285,994 9 

Plans/reports 52 18

Students served 152,027 112

Workers/trainees served 22,510 60

Source: RTI

 

67 We use the term “measures” or “goals” to refer broadly to both 

outputs and outcomes that ARC tracks in ARC.net. 

Table 5-1. Outputs of 

ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants at the End of 

Grant Period (N=310)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-2 

Of the projects with complete data, 127 (50 percent68) met or 

exceeded the goals set forth at the beginning of the grant. 

Thirty-five of those projects exceeded their established goals. 

Many projects came close to meeting all of their stated goals 

within their grant. We found that 140 (55 percent) projects 

reached 85 percent of the goals the grantees established at the 

beginning of the grant period. At the same time, 115 (45 

percent) grants did not come within the 85 percent threshold 

for meeting stated goals. A variety of factors may have led to 

the significant portion of grants that met or exceeded project 

goals and likewise a variety of factors that likely made it 

difficult for grantees to meet all of their stated outcomes. This 

research explores many of the reasons that helped grants have 

stronger or weaker performance than expected. The survey 

findings (Section 6) and case studies (Section 7) delve into 

the factors and circumstances that grantees thought helped or 

hindered their ability to perform. 

In addition to understanding the circumstances that help or 

hinder grant performance, it is important to note three 

significant things when considering grant performance. First, 

ensuring data quality for grant reporting is difficult and 

cumbersome for grantees. Secondly, grant applications from 

the states were inventive and highly varied to the needs of 

each state and county served. Many of these kinds of grants 

had not been implemented before; thus, stating the expected 

goals at the grant outset likely held a degree of uncertainty. 

Lastly, telecommunications and technology, by their nature, 

tend to have much more long-lasting impacts. Capturing 

performance measures at the end of a 1- or 4-year period 

misses the long-term and ongoing impacts that these kinds of 

grants can have. We capture some of these impacts in 

Section 6.2. 

The data for the analysis in this section reflect the outputs and 

outcomes at the close of the grant period for each individual 

project. These data we review largely in this report are limited 

to the grant period for each project. They do not indicate longterm success or failure of projects. In fact, one of the key 

findings from our survey (Section 6) is the degree to which a 

project’s impacts can continue to accumulate even after the 

ARC grant ends. In this section, we focus more specifically on 

 

68 Of the portfolio of 265 projects with complete information. 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-3 

descriptors of how grant funding was allocated and grant 

performance at project closeout. Grant performance at the 

conclusion of the grant should not be interpreted as a definitive 

metric of success or failure. 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

This section summarizes the information collected on each ARC 

grant within the telecommunications and technology portfolio 

during the grant period up to the end of the grant or at the 

close of the project. The ARC grant database provides detailed 

information on the traits of each grant, its intended objectives, 

and the status of each grant at its conclusion. This section 

provides a rich overview of the ARC portfolio in 

telecommunications and technology that serves as a foundation 

from which other data analyses (e.g., survey and case studies) 

build on throughout the remainder of the report. 

Section 5.2 explains the data methods used to analyze grant 

performance and the steps RTI took to ensure quality data. 

Section 5.3 outlines RTI’s framework for analyzing the project 

data based on the (1) function of the grant along the 

broadband Internet spectrum and (2) primary target 

beneficiary of the grant. Section 5.4 provides an overview of 

ARC’s grants by time frame, state, function, beneficiary, levels 

of funding, and economically distressed areas. Section 5.5

summarizes how at-close performance measures compare with 

corresponding projected goals across functions and geography. 

We also analyze multifunctional grants. At the end of this 

section, the reader will have a detailed understanding of the 

ARC portfolio, its performance, and how it has directly affected 

people in the Appalachian Region. 

5.2 DATA METHODS 

The ARC database of grants formed the starting point for our 

evaluation and is the basis for the descriptive summary that 

follows in Section 5.3. The ARC database was extracted from 

ARC.net by ARC staff and originally included 322 grants as part 

of the telecommunications and technology program between 

fiscal years 2004 and 2010. Of the original 322 grants, RTI 

removed 12 grants from the evaluation for the following 

reasons: 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-4 

 Six grants were revisions of previous grants that began 

before the start of the study period (FY 2004) and 

therefore were deemed outside of the study period. 

 Eight grants represented pairs of grants that were 

revisions to the original grants, so they were collapsed 

into four grants for this evaluation. RTI combined the 

data on funding and performance measures for these 

grants accordingly. 

 Two grants were removed because they were outside 

the scope of this evaluation.69

The complete list of these 12 grants can be found in 

Appendix A. The database contains descriptive information 

such as 

 grant codes and titles; 

 information about grant location, grant recipients, and 

contact information; 

 performance measures (projected, at close, and 

validated); and 

 text descriptions of the grants, closeout reports, and 

validation visits. 

Of the 310 grants used for the evaluation, RTI reviewed the 

grant performance data for accuracy and consistency. There 

were missing data and data quality issues in the database that 

RTI staff addressed. Thus, RTI staff carefully reviewed data for 

each grant to track whether grants had both projected and atclose measures and to verify consistency of the recorded 

performance measures with project descriptions from the 

database and other documentation from ARC.net such as 

closeout notes. RTI paid close attention to paired output and 

outcome measures to understand how project participants were 

positively affected by grants. However, as Section 5.5.2

shows, RTI researchers found inconsistencies in how grant 

recipients reported paired outputs and outcomes. 

Through this process, RTI made direct data edits for nine grants 

where there was an apparent discrepancy between closeout 

notes and the recorded performance measures. In most of 

 

69 Projects removed were Southern Growth Policies Board 2006 Annual 

Conference (CO-14135-C4) and Web-Based Resources for Grant 

Development/Performance Measurement & Assessment of 

Opportunities to Improve Business Process (CO-12882-I-J).
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-5 

these cases, there was an at-close measure in the closeout 

notes that was not recorded in the data. 

RTI also identified 79 grants that were missing at-close 

numbers or projected numbers.70 ARC and RTI were able to 

review and update data for 25 grants by searching through 

paper files that were not captured in ARC.net, leaving 54 (17

percent of the grant portfolio) without at-close data. Of the 54 

grants without at-close data, they fell into three categories: 

 23 had no performance data available at the close of the 

grant because the programs were just getting started or 

were in the early stages of implementation. 

 10 were managed by another agency, and ARC does not 

receive closeout numbers from them. Examples of other 

agencies are HUD and the Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA). 

 ARC and RTI were unable to locate the paper files for 21 

grants. These were primarily for grants between FY 

2004 and FY 2007. 

The complete list of these 54 grants and the reasons for their 

missing data can be found in Appendix A. At the end of the 

data-cleaning process 256 grants had complete performance 

measures. Any analysis of performance measures in this 

section thus refers to the 256 grants with complete data. 

Descriptive statistics about the portfolio, however, reflect the 

310 total grants. We note throughout the report when we use 

the full database (N=310) or when we are summarizing only 

the grants with complete data files (n=256). 

5.3 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK: FUNCTION AND 

TARGET BENEFICIARY 

ARC’s grantmaking efforts during the evaluation period were 

diverse. To provide a common analytical structure across the 

evaluation, RTI devised a framework to organize the portfolio. 

The framework comprises two dimensions: 

 Function of the grant—that is, how the grant related to 

the direct installation of broadband Internet and other 

Internet infrastructure, implementation of networking 

and ancillary equipment, applications taking advantage 

 

70 RTI did not make any modifications to the validated data. Of the 310 

projects, 65 had a validation visit from ARC. This report does not 

analyze validation data. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-6 

of Internet connectivity, and efforts to accelerate the 

adoption of broadband Internet. 

 Beneficiary—the individuals, groups, or types of 

organizations the investments were intended to 

primarily benefit. 

The first dimension of the framework is a significant change in 

how grants were organized in the database, while the second 

dimension refined what ARC was already tracking. Overall, this 

framework helps clarify how ARC is investing across the 

broadband Internet spectrum and the beneficiaries of these 

efforts. 

5.3.1 Function 

Telecommunications and technology adoption projects, 

particularly focused on broadband Internet use, do not occur in 

a vacuum. The function dimension of the evaluation framework 

is based on the spectrum of telecommunications investments 

and includes direct installation of broadband Internet 

infrastructure, equipment that allows people to access the 

broadband Internet, applications that allow people and 

organizations to take advantage of broadband Internet, and 

education to adopt broadband Internet technology. It is based 

on the logic that grants of different functions serve 

communities in different ways. Table 5-2 describes RTI’s 

functional framework and gives examples of the types of grants 

that fall into each category. 

In the data analysis, RTI reviewed each grant and categorized 

them with all functions that were applicable to capture the 

nature of cross-functionality of grants in the portfolio. 

Therefore, in some cases, the totals for the grants by function 

will add up to be greater than 310 because many grants were 

multifunctional, such as computer equipment for broadband 

Internet access (“indirect broadband Internet”) combined with 

computer skills training grants (“adoption of broadband 

Internet”). We focused on multifunctional grants, because of 

the emphasis within the ARC project guidelines on multiuse 

strategies (see Section 2.3). Also, RTI analysts were able to 

understand how multifunctional grant performance compared 

with that of grants with a single goal or function. 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-7 

Table 5-2. Function Dimension of the Evaluation Framework 

Function Description Examples

Direct 

broadband

“Outside the building” projects 

that expand broadband 

Internet access or improve 

Internet connectivity for local 

businesses, schools, or the 

community more broadly.

 Laying fiber optics

 Wireless broadband Internet antennas

 WiMAX

 Community-wide Wi-Fi access

Indirect 

broadband/

supported by 

broadband

“Inside the building” projects 

that invest in networking 

equipment and other 

telecommunications tools that 

are supported by or depend 

on broadband Internet access.

 Networking equipment: fiber optic termination 

equipment, cabling, ATM switches, routers, 

servers, etc.

 Wi-Fi routers

 Video-conferencing equipment

 Voice over Internet Protocol equipment

 Connected classroom technology

 Point-of-presence systems

 Internet2 for educational institutions

Applications 

of broadband

Projects that convey 

information or provide 

services via broadband 

Internet.

 Distance learning

 Health technology: picture archiving and 

communication systems, EMRs, tele-health 

programs

 Websites

 E-payment systems

 Business incubators focused on e-commerce 

or online tech services

 Geographic information systems (GIS) with 

web-based functionality

 Wireless kiosks

Adoption of 

broadband

Projects focused on improving 

the planning for broadband 

Internet infrastructure and 

developing the digital literacy

of participants through 

training, professional 

development, or education to 

spur adoption of broadband 

Internet and 

telecommunications

technologies.

 Curriculum development

 Training

 Computer literacy

 E-commerce initiatives/training

 Software training

 Seminars and conferences

 Workforce development

 Technical assistance

 Strategic planning for broadband Internet

 Telecommunications assessments

(continued) 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-8 

Table 5-2. Function Dimension of the Evaluation Framework (continued) 

Function Description Examples

Other nontelecommunications

technologies

General purpose technologies 

that are not directly related to 

telecommunications.

 General medical technology unrelated to 

broadband Internet or Internet

 Lab equipment for community colleges

 Public safety projects

 Fire training equipment

 light-emitting diode (LED) traffic lights

 Building technologies: general construction, 

HVAC systems, green building technologies, 

LED lighting, other building technologies

 Other technologies such as energy, 

manufacturing, etc.

 GIS systems for internal use: Without web 

functionality

Uncategorized Outliers  Experiential learning

 Business incubators (with no direct link to 

broadband Internet)

 Science, technology, engineering, math 

(STEM)-oriented education and training 

projects such as Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL) Summer Institute

Source: RTI, ARC 

Of the grants during the study period, RTI classified 119 as 

multifunctional with at least one telecommunications function, 

making up 38 percent of the portfolio. The grants represented a 

wide range of project types and geographies and were not 

concentrated in a single category. Table 5-3 outlines the 

single-function and multifunctional grants and how they 

incorporated telecommunications functions. 

Table 5-3. Function of ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants (N=310) 

Single Function or 

Multifunctional Function Count

Percentage

of Totala

Single function Direct broadband 30 10

Single function Indirect broadband /supported by broadband 31 10

Single function Applications of broadband 20 6

Single function Adoption of broadband 29 9

Multifunctional Multifunctional with at least one 

telecommunications function

119 38

Single function Other nontelecommunications technologies 60 20

All other 21 6

a

 Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: RTI 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-9 

5.3.2 Beneficiary 

In addition to organizing grants along the function dimension, 

RTI identified the kinds of people primarily affected by each 

grant. The primary beneficiary dimension of the evaluation 

framework was based on ARC’s original categories but more 

specifically focused on the group that was most directly 

affected or expected to be affected by the grant. Furthermore, 

we refined some of ARC’s original categories to best describe 

the suite of grants. Table 5-4 lists the primary beneficiary and 

the most common examples of projects in each category. 

Primary 

Target 

Beneficiary Count Description

Business 

development

40 Business parks, entrepreneurial centers, 

business incubators, tourism projects, 

and business development centers in the 

context of workforce development

Community 

development

48 Community-wide initiatives and other 

projects that have a broad reach beyond 

a single category

Education 87 Projects that directly affect K–12 

education, including projects that directly 

affect the classroom through teacher 

training and curriculum development

Training 62 Projects focused on community colleges, 

universities, job training, and workforce 

development

Health 32 All health-related projects such as EMRs, 

telemedicine, and digital imaging 

technology

Local 

government

41 Projects that directly benefit improved 

government services such as emergency 

services and electronic records keeping, 

which then have a secondary effect on 

the community

Source: RTI 

In the designation of the primary beneficiary, RTI focused on 

the group that would be most directly affected by ARC funding. 

By the nature of these categories, many grants had secondary 

beneficiaries: local government projects would, in turn, benefit 

the community because of improved government services. To 

be consistent across grants, RTI solely categorized grants by 

one primary beneficiary. 

Table 5-4. Primary 

Beneficiary of ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants 

(N=310)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-10

5.3.3 Summarizing Grants by Function and Beneficiary 

When used together, the function of the grant and target 

beneficiary helps to more succinctly describe the breadth of the 

grant portfolio. More specifically, it highlights how ARC has 

invested in telecommunications and technology to positively 

affect the people of the Appalachian Region. 

Table 5-5 provides a matrix that details the dual frameworks 

for analysis—function and beneficiary. Under each cross-section 

between the two dimensions, we summarize the types of grants 

and list the corresponding number of grants associated with 

each. Common themes emerge across the portfolio, revealing 

common areas of focus. The following are the most common 

intersections of function and primary beneficiary: 

 Direct broadband Internet for community 

development: Municipal fiber, wireless, or other highspeed broadband Internet connection for a large area.

 Indirect broadband Internet for education:

Equipment for K–12 schools and classrooms to connect 

to broadband Internet, including laptops, smart boards, 

networking, routers, and other hardware.

 Indirect broadband Internet for training: 

Equipment, including computers for workforce training 

centers, community colleges, and universities. 

 Indirect broadband Internet for health: Equipment 

for health services that requires a high-speed broadband 

Internet connection such as telemedicine or remote 

monitoring devices. 

 Applications of broadband Internet for education: 

E-learning curriculums and online education programs. 

 Applications of broadband Internet for health: 

Systems for telemedicine and remote diagnosis, EMRs 

for hospitals, and electronic imaging systems. 

 Other technology investments for training: 

General-purpose technology-based training for a variety 

of job skills including manufacturing, horticulture, and 

experiential learning. 
 

 

Section 5 

— Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-11

Table 5-5. Summary of the Framework—Function 

Primary 

Beneficiary Direct Broadband

Supported by 

Broadband/Indirect

Applications of 

Broadband

Adoption of 

Broadband

Other Technology 

Investments Unrelated to 

Broadband Other

Business 

development

Fiber or wireless 

Internet connecting a 

business park to highspeed Internet service 

(6)a

Equipment to help 

improve accessibility in 

business parks and 

tourism centers (10)

Applications include 

e-commerce 

initiatives and 

websites for local 

businesses and 

business groups (15)

Support programs to 

help businesses access 

broadband Internet

technology 

applications (7)

Construction of physical 

infrastructure to support 

technology, including business 

incubator space and physical 

capital such as a 3D printer (13)

Entrepreneurship 

programs and 

business 

incubators (6)

Community 

development

Municipal fiber, 

wireless or other highspeed Internet

connection for a large 

area (24)

Equipment for municipal 

services including 

emergency services, civic 

centers, and public 

libraries (11)

Applications include 

asset mapping for 

local communities 

(7)

Technical assistance 

and master planning 

programs for 

community broadband 

Internet initiatives 

(10)

GIS systems without web 

functionality (4)

(0)

Education Providing a direct highspeed connection to a 

school for Internet or 

Internet2 connectivity 

(6)

Equipment for schools 

including laptops in the 

classroom, computers for 

schools, routers for 

schools, and smart 

boards (51)

E-learning 

curriculums, online 

services for 

education in the 

general curriculum 

(26)

Education and training 

for K–12 in computer 

literacy, Internet, and 

other technologyconnected to high 

speed Internet (20)

Other classroom technology that 

does not require broadband 

Internet, such as science labs, 

recording studios, and other 

technology education (15)

Afterschool 

programs, summer 

institutes, and 

general education 

(12)

Training Training for workers to 

install broadband 

Internet technology 

including fiber optic 

line (2)

Equipment including 

computers for workforce 

training centers, 

community colleges, and 

universities (26)

Includes 

complementary 

applications for 

equipment in 

training centers (9)

Technology training 

for adults in computer 

literacy, e-commerce, 

web design, and 

Internet-related skills 

(19)

General technology-based 

training on emergency response, 

manufacturing workforce training 

(26)

General purpose 

technology-based 

training for a 

variety of job skills 

including 

manufacturing, 

horticulture, and 

experiential 

learning (6)

Health (0) Equipment for health 

services that requires a 

high speed Internet

connection such as 

telemedicine or remote 

monitoring devices (20)

EMRs, electronic 

imaging systems 

(23)

Training for any health 

equipment that 

requires high-speed 

Internet including 

telemedicine and EMR 

systems (6)

Hospital equipment that does not 

necessarily require broadband 

Internet: radiography, monitoring 

equipment, diagnostic equipment 

(8)

(0)

Local 

government

High-speed connection 

for improved municipal 

services, including 

criminal justice (4)

Equipment for improved 

government services,

including criminal justice, 

records keeping, 

communication, and epayment systems (12)

E-government 

services including 

emergency services, 

e-payment systems, 

records backup, web 

hosting (13)

Government outreach 

programs for 

broadband Internet

adoption, including 

conferences, technical 

assistance, and 

training (11)

Includes GIS, technical 

assistance for GIS, and physical 

infrastructure for government 

services (15)

(0)

a

 Numbers in parentheses represent the number of grants that are classified by the primary beneficiary and function. Totals do not add to 310 because some grants are 

multifunctional. 

Source: RTI
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-12

5.4 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 

Now that we have established the frameworks that underpin 

the analysis we describe all of ARC’s grantmaking activity in 

telecommunications and technology between FY 2004 and FY 

2010. Over the 7-year grant period, ARC invested in a wide 

range of projects in terms of size, grantees, function, 

beneficiary, geography, and other observable characteristics of 

grants. 

5.4.1 Summary Statistics of the Portfolio 

Summary statistics of the quantitative variables for the portfolio 

of grants are summarized in Table 5-6. ARC contributed 

roughly $132,000 in funding for each project, although that is 

skewed by the larger grants. The median, a more reliable 

measure of central tendency in this case, is $87,730. ARC 

contributed between $2,192 and up to $2 million for a single 

grant.71 On average, ARC funds accounted for about 41 percent 

of total funding. 

Variable Mean Median Min Max

ARC funds 131,957 86,730 2,192 2,000,000

Local funds 119,058 50,000 0 1,472,500

State funds 49,902 0 0 4,000,000

Other federal funds 21,902 0 0 1,925,000

Total funds 322,819 183,318 3,000 4,851,168

Grant duration (days) 681 590 107 2,514

Continuation 11% 0 0 1

Number of functions 1.4 1.0 1.0 4.0

Number of counties 

serveda

5.4 1 1 55

a Summary statistics for the number of counties were only calculated for the 292 

non-Commission-funded grants. Counties were unavailable for the Commissionfunded projects.

ARC funding typically supports grants for close to 2 years. The 

shortest grant lasted for three and a half months, while the 

longest grant lasted for nearly 7 years. Eleven percent of grants 

 

71 One grant with $0 in ARC funding—“NC Medications Access and 

Review Program Expansion Pilot”—received in-kind services from 

ARC instead of cash funding. 

Table 5-6. Summary 

Statistics (N=310)
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-13 

awarded by ARC during the 7-year period were continuations of 

previous projects. 

Approximately 60 percent of the grants only had a single 

function along the telecommunications and technology 

spectrum. The average was 1.4, meaning grants tended to 

have between one and two functions. Several grants were 

highly multifunctional with as many as four total functions. 

The geographic reach of each grant varied significantly. 

Roughly half of the grants were targeted at a single county; 

however, grants like the Space Science Center Instructional 

Equipment and Furnishings in Kentucky and the WV State 

Museum Education served more than 50 counties each. 

5.4.2 Scale of Projects 

In its telecommunications and technology portfolio, ARC funded 

projects ranging from local initiatives with a budget in the 

thousands of dollars to large, multicounty projects with budgets 

as high as $2 million. ARC guidelines generally allow for grants 

up to 50 percent of a project’s total cost, but the scale of 

projects depends on the discretion of the state’s grant 

manager. Figure 5-1 shows the funding and number of 

projects by total project budget funding (ARC and non-ARC 

sources) over the 7-year period. 

The most common grants funded were for projects with a 

budget of $250,000 or less, of which ARC contributed 

approximately half of the total funding. Larger projects received 

less ARC funding as a portion of their total funding. The eight 

projects with a budget over $2 million received less than onequarter of their funding from ARC and leveraged more state 

and other federal funding. These projects included large 

medical center expansions and business development projects, 

such as entrepreneurship centers and business development 

parks. 

5.4.3 Funding Over Time 

During the period between FY 2004 and FY 2010, ARC granted 

nearly $41 million to programs which leveraged another $59 

million in local, state, and federal funding for a total of 

approximately $100 million. The following figures show the 

trends over the seven year grantmaking period. They show ARC 

funding, total funding, and number of grants over the 7-year 

period. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-14 

Figure 5-1. Total Funding and Number of ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants 

by Project Size: FY 2004–FY 2010

Source: ARC.net, RTI

ARC funding oscillated between FY 2004 and FY 2008 and 

declined significantly between FY 2008 and 2010. Funding 

levels do not reflect budgets cuts or increases in the 

telecommunications and technology portfolio. Two factors play 

a major role in how and when ARC awards grants by program 

area. First, states determine the grants across all program 

areas that they submit to ARC for final approval. For example, 

a state may submit applications for entrepreneurship grants 

rather than telecommunications and technology grants during 

one year. Secondly, funding fluctuations reflect the grant 

applications submitted. For example, if a state does not submit 

any applications for telecommunications and technology grants, 

no funding is allocated. Thus, the budget for 

telecommunications and technology grants may decrease or 

increase year by year depending on states’ priorities.
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-15 

FY 2010 had the lowest level of ARC funding, with $3.9 million 

going toward 39 telecommunications and technology grants. 

Total funding toward telecommunications and technology 

declined every year from FY 2004 through FY 2010. 

Figures 5-2 through 5-4 show the timeline of ARC’s 

grantmaking during that time. 

5.4.4 Grantees 

The most common grant recipient was a nonprofit without 

501(c)(3) status: These recipients included community 

organizations, hospitals, foundations, economic development 

corporations, and business associations. Additionally, public 

institutions of higher education, county governments, and local 

development districts received a large number of grants. 

Figure 5-5 shows the most common recipients of ARC grants 

in telecommunications and technology. 

Some grantees received more than one grant during the study 

period, while most grantees were one-time grant recipients. 

Some of the repeat grantees include the SEDA-Council of 

Governments (six grants), Allegheny College of MD (five 

grants), Mission WV, Inc. (four grants), Mississippi State 

University (four grants), Board of Education Allegheny County 

(four grants), and Oak Ridge Associated Universities (four 

grants). 

Of the repeat grantees, some received ARC funding for 

continuations of previous projects, while some received ARC 

funding for altogether new projects. Overall, 33 grants, or 

about 11 percent of the total portfolio, were continuations of 

previous grants. For example, the ORNL Summer Institute was 

funded six times during the study period, every year from 2004 

through 2010 with the exception of 2007 (see spotlight below 

for the 2004 project). 

Overall, 33 grants, or 

about 11 percent of the 

total portfolio, were 

continuations of previous 

grants.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-16 

Figure 5-2. ARC Funding for Telecommunications and Technology Grants by Fiscal Year: 

FY 2004–FY 2010

Figure 5-3. Total Funding and Funding Sources for ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Projects by Fiscal Year: FY 2004–FY 2010

Figure 5-4. Number of ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants by Fiscal Year: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-17 

Figure 5-5. Number of ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants by Grantee Type: FY 

2004–FY 2010 (N=310)

Source: ARC.net, RTI

Grant Spotlight: Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2004 

Summer Institute

The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education managed the 

ARC/ORNL Math-Science-Technology Institute in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, that was held for 2 weeks in July 2004. Twenty teachers 

and 33 students from high schools in the Appalachian Region

participated in the institute. The participants engaged in research 

projects and in cultural and recreational activities to celebrate their 

Appalachian heritage. The institute not only encouraged the students 

to attend college and pursue careers in science, mathematics, 

engineering, and technology, but also strengthened the scientific 

content knowledge of participating teachers.

ARC invested a total of $1.4 million in the summer institute from FY 

2004 through FY 2010.

Another example of a continuation is the Mission WV Striving 

for Technological Empowerment while Providing Unlimited 

Potential (STEPUP) project. This initiative focused on creating 

computer labs with access to broadband Internet for worker 

training in rural West Virginia. It was initially funded by ARC in 

2003 and was funded an additional four times during the study 

period.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-18 

5.4.5 Function and Beneficiary

Function 

During the study period, ARC invested heavily in all levels of 

the telecommunications and technology spectrum, and its 

investments went far beyond infrastructure in fiber or wireless 

broadband Internet. Figure 5-6 shows the counts of projects 

by function.

The most frequent type of grant was for equipment supported 

by broadband Internet or “indirect broadband Internet.” These 

grants most commonly involved purchasing hardware for an 

educational institution (computers, routers, smart boards) or 

health center (telemedicine equipment) or purchasing 

equipment for other civic or community needs, such as a 

community center or training center. These grants give people 

direct access to the Internet and rely on an existing Internet 

connection.

Figure 5-6. Number of Grants with Each Function as a Component of the Grant (N=310)

Source: ARC.net, RTI

Grant Spotlight: Broome Tioga BOCES Distance Learning 

Project 

This ARC grant provided funds to purchase video conferencing 

equipment for two school districts to improve distance learning 

capabilities. In its first year, the project served 360 students through 

new course offerings and advanced learning experiences. 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-19 

Applications of broadband Internet grants were varied but 

involved giving people added value through access to the 

Internet and Internet-connected devices. They included 

e-commerce and e-learning programs that improved outcomes 

for business and education. Adoption-oriented grants were 

designed to teach people how to take advantage of the Internet 

and associated telecommunications technology. Direct 

broadband Internet grants were less common, and they 

involved physically laying fiber or installing antennas to give 

people access to Internet service or improved speeds. 

Nonbroadband Internet, general-purpose technology grants 

were wide ranging and covered a variety of categories: 

 building construction 

 vocational and skills training 

 medical and dental equipment 

 manufacturing equipment 

 laboratory equipment for schools, colleges, and 

universities 

These grants included technology elements but were not 

technologies that depended on high-speed Internet or 

broadband Internet. 

Target Beneficiary 

Looking at funding by target beneficiary allows us to see how 

ARC’s grantmaking priorities affected the people who live and 

work in Appalachia. The most common beneficiary categories 

were education (K–12) and training (community colleges, 

universities, job training, and workforce development), both in 

total number of grants and in ARC funding. Figure 5-7 shows 

levels of ARC funding for projects by target beneficiary during 

the 7-year period. 

Figure 5-8 shows ARC funding, leveraged funding, and counts 

of projects by primary target beneficiary. Although education 

and training beneficiaries were the largest recipients of ARC 

funding, business development projects were able to leverage a 

higher percentage of funding from other sources. 

Excluding leveraged funding from other sources, we can see in

Figure 5-7 how ARC’s investments changed over time. ARC 

funding for education increased slightly over the period but was 

quite volatile. Training declined over the period and had one 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-20 

Figure 5-7. ARC Funding by Target Beneficiary of ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010

Source: ARC.net, RTI

Figure 5-8. ARC Funding, Leveraged Funding, and Count of Projects by Target Beneficiary of 

ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010

Source: ARC.net, RTI
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-21 

large spike in 2007. Of the remaining four beneficiary 

categories, business development has the clearest trend 

because it appears to decline right around the time of the 

recession in 2008 through 2010.72

5.4.6 Geographic Distribution of Grants: Distressed Areas

As described in Section 2, ARC places a special emphasis on 

grants to economically distressed counties, which it defines by 

an index of three economic indicators: unemployment, income, 

and poverty rates. At the beginning of the grant period in FY 

2004, ARC identified 91 counties as distressed: these counties 

were concentrated in Mississippi, Kentucky, and West Virginia.73

In the application process, grantees indicated the degree to 

which the grant would have an impact on distressed areas;

“primary” indicated the largest impact. “Substantial,” “limited,”

and “none” indicated decreasing degrees of impact.

RTI observed a difference between states in the percentage of 

grants going to distressed areas, which was indicative of the 

percentage of distressed counties by state. Figure 5-9 shows the 

percentage of projects by state that had a substantial or primary 

impact on distressed areas, as well as the portion of Appalachian 

counties within each state designated as economically distressed.

States with the highest concentration of grants to distressed 

counties were Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, and Mississippi. 

Three of these four states also have the highest levels of 

economic distress as defined by ARC. Virginia stands out as a 

state with a low level of economic distress but a high 

percentage of projects with an impact on distressed areas: 73

percent of grants in Virginia were categorized as having a 

substantial or primary impact on economically distressed areas.

ARC allows for a unique funding structure for projects with a 

substantial or primary impact on distressed counties. It grants 

up to 80 percent of a project’s total budget instead of the usual 

50 percent, recognizing the challenge of raising local funding in 

economically distressed areas. Figure 5-10 shows how 

projects leveraged funding based on impact on distressed 

counties.

 

72 If one looks at leveraged funding from other sources for business 

development, the same trend holds. 

73 Appalachian Regional Commission. “County Economic Status in 

Appalachia, FY 2004.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp?MAP_ID=11 on 

August 1, 2015. 

ARC places a special 

emphasis on grants to 

economically distressed 

counties, which it defines 

by an index of three 

economic indicators: 

unemployment, income, 

and poverty rates.

Virginia stands out as a 

state with a low level of 

economic distress but a 

high percentage of 

projects with an impact 

on distressed areas.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-22 

Figure 5-9. Percentage of Grants to Distressed Areas by State: ARC Telecommunications 

and Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010

Source: ARC.net, ARC Data Reports, RTI

Figure 5-10. Funding Structure for Projects by Impact on Distressed Counties: ARC 

Telecommunications and Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010

Source: ARC.net, RTI
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-23 

Projects with a primary impact on distressed counties received, 

on average, over 60 percent of their funding from ARC. This 

occurred principally for two reasons: 

1. ARC will fund up to 80 percent of the total project 

budget for projects that significantly affect distressed 

areas. 

2. Because of less favorable economic conditions, 

organizations tended to leverage less local funding. 

Local funding accounted for less than 18 percent of the 

total when the impact was deemed “primary” by the 

grantee. 

This report places particular attention on how projects affected 

distressed areas. As we show in Section 5.5.3, projects in 

distressed areas had performance outputs and outcomes that 

were similar to or better than the mean. 

5.4.7 Geographic Distribution of Grants: States 

ARC’s grant programs are run through a state program officer, 

who distributes each state’s allotment of ARC grant money 

according to local priorities and local grant requests. 

Telecommunications and technology is just one of many areas 

ARC invests in through grants. Each state has a unique portfolio 

of ARC telecommunications and technology grants. 

Of all of the states in the Appalachian Region, Alabama 

allocated the most money to telecommunications and 

technology grants ($9.3 million), followed by Kentucky and 

Mississippi. ARC funds made up a large portion of the total 

budget for projects in these states because many of them had 

an impact on distressed counties. 

Figure 5-11 shows the total funding to each state’s 

telecommunications and technology grants from ARC and 

outside sources. Pennsylvania stands out as having leveraged 

the most state and local funding: although it only received $2.1 

million in ARC funding, its projects had a total budget of over 

$12.5 million. This is partially due to two large business 

development projects with budgets over $3.5 million, which 

leveraged over 95 percent of their funding from other sources. 

The two projects are spotlighted below. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-24 

Figure 5-11. Total Funding by State and by Funding Source: ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 2004–FY 2010

Source: ARC.net, RTI

Grant Spotlight: East Stroudsburg Incubator Expansion

This project, run through the U.S. Economic Development 

Administration, invested $3.6 million, including $75K from ARC in an 

economic development outreach center for the community to expand 

an existing business incubator. The project additionally worked to 

connect East Stroudsburg State University with local start-ups and 

connect businesses with university-level research.

Grant Spotlight: Erie Technology Incubator at Gannon 

University 

This project, run through HUD, invested nearly $5 million, including 

$200K from ARC to refurbish an old industrial site in Erie, PA, with the 

aim to attract high-tech businesses to downtown Erie.

Other states, including North Carolina, Maryland, and Ohio, had 

high percentages of leveraged funding. However, grants in 

those states were less targeted at distressed counties. As 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-25 

explained in Section 5.4.6, grants in economically distressed 

areas were less likely to leverage outside funding, making it 

difficult to draw conclusions about project performance based 

on funding structures. 

Figure 5-12 displays the approximate74 geographic distribution 

of ARC spending in telecommunications and technology across 

each county in the Region. 

Figure 5-12. Approximate ARC Funding for Telecommunications and Technology Grants by 

County: FY 2004–FY 2010 

 

74 Approximate spending by county was calculated by dividing funds 

evenly across all counties affected by each project. The figure is 

meant to be representative and should not be understood as an 

exact figure of spending by county. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-26

5.5 GRANT PERFORMANCE 

The at-close grant performance measures are the best way to 

show the number of people, businesses, organizations, and 

communities served by the grant because ARC collects these 

data for each grant issued. Taken as a whole, these measures 

indicate the extensive reach of ARC’s grantmaking activities. 

5.5.1 Performance Measures 

ARC uses a mix of output and outcome measures for grant 

applicants to measure the projected performance of the project 

(see Figure 5-13). In the application, potential grantees 

supported their proposals by projecting a series of outputs and 

outcomes and then reporting the actual outputs and outcomes 

at the close of the grant. These measures allowed RTI to 

compare the performance at the closeout of the grant with 

what each grant projected at the outset. However, they do not 

necessarily capture the full impact of the grants because many 

of these projects may take several years to achieve their full 

impact on communities. Section 6 (Survey Analysis) and 

Section 7 (Case Studies) shed more insights on the long-term 

impacts of ARC’s investments. The remainder of this section 

breaks down performance at the portfolio level and at the grant 

level. 

5.5.2 Portfolio Performance 

At-Close Performance Totals for the Portfolio 

The $41 million in grants by ARC over the 7-year period served 

a wide range of people, organizations, and infrastructure 

investments in the Region including students, patients, 

businesses, and linear feet of fiber. Table 5-7 shows the total 

at-close75 performance numbers for all 310 grants during the 

study period, regardless of whether they had projected 

performance in the database. 

The performance data show a diverse and widespread impact of 

ARC’s grantmaking efforts during the study period. Some 

grants used paired performance measures, using outputs that 

were tied to outcomes such as students served and students 

improved. In theory, students improved should be no larger 

 

75 At-close refers to the closure of the ARC grant funding period, not 

necessarily the end of the project. In many cases, the funding 

period was just the pilot or start-up period for the project. 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-27 

Figure 5-13. Performance Measures for the Telecommunications and Technology Portfolio 

Single Measures: Outputs

These outcomes do not have to be paired 

with specific outputs. The following 

outcomes can stand-alone.

Single Measures: Outcomes

These outcomes do not have to be paired with 

specific outputs. The following outcomes can standalone.

 Linear feet

 Plans/reports

 Businesses served

 Businesses created

 Jobs created

 Jobs retained

 Leveraged private 

investment

 Programs 

implemented

 Telecommunications 

sites

 Households 

improved

See definitions below

Paired Measures: The following outputs are paired with specific outcomes, which means that each 

outcome must be used with a specific, corresponding output.

For example, if you use this output:

Participants served Then the recommended outcome to 

include is...

Participants improved

Patients served Then the recommended outcome to 

include is...

Patients improved

Students served Then the recommended outcome to 

include is...

Students improved

Workers/trainees served Then the recommended outcome to 

include is...

Workers/trainees improved

Plans/reports created Not always paired, recommended 

outcome to include is...

Programs implemented

Source: ARC. July 12, 2013. “Guidance for Performance Measures for ARC Projects.” Washington, DC: ARC. 

than students served; however, some grants tracked only 

students improved and did not track students served. This 

highlights the challenges of measuring performance while 

implementing grants and distinguishing between people served 

by a grant and those whose outcomes are improved by it. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-28

Performance Measure

Amount 

At-Close n

Businesses created—Outcome 101 11

Businesses served—Output 5,176 36

Households improved—Outcome 40,941 8

Jobs created—Outcome 2,849 41

Jobs retained—Outcome 759 6

Leveraged private investment—

Outcome 

$10,319,458 15

Linear feet—Output 756,494 10

Participants improved—Outcome 212,625 34

Participants served—Output 151,141 61

Patients improved—Outcome 279,554 8

Patients served—Output 285,994 9

Plans/reports—Output 52 18

Programs implemented—Outcome 108 34

Students improved—Outcome 59,490 87

Students served—Output 152,027 112

Telecommunications sites—Outcome 676 108

Workers/trainees improved—Outcome 10,058 57

Workers/trainees served—Output 22,510 60

Note: n indicates the number of grants that used the corresponding 

performance measures for their projected goals or at-close performance 

measures. Paired performance measures are highlighted in gray. Includes 

totals for all grants (N=310). 

Source: ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants FY 2004–FY 2010, 

RTI 

Portfolio At-Close Performance Compared with Projected 

Performance 

To measure the performance of grants relative to their 

projections, RTI analyzed the projected and at-close 

performance numbers to see how grants compared with their 

original plans. Table 5-8 shows the projected and at-close 

performance numbers at the portfolio level (for the grants with 

complete information), how the at-close performance measures 

compared with the projections, and the number of grants that 

used each performance measure. 

Table 5-7. At-Close 

Performance of ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY

2004–FY 2010 (N=310)
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-29 

Table 5-8. Projected and At-Close Performance of all ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants (n=256) 

Performance Measure

Projected 

Amount

At-Close

Amount

Percentage

Attainment, 

%

Number of 

Grants that 

Used the 

Measure

Nonpaired Measures

Businesses created—Outcome 140 101 72 10

Businesses served—Output 4,218 5,176 123 34

Households improved—Outcome 13,400 40,841 305 5

Jobs created—Outcome 2,175 2,827 130 32

Jobs retained—Outcome 792 759 96 5

Leveraged private investment—

outcome 

$76,959,190 $10,319,458 13 10

Linear feet—Output 721,754 714,254 99 9

Plans/reports—Output 52 52 100 18

Programs implemented—Outcome 88 107 122 29

Telecommunications sites—Outcome 608 673 111 100

Paired Measures

Participants improved—Outcome 230,781 212,625 92 28

Participants served—Output 177,636 149,768 84 52

Patients improved—Outcome 323,098 279,554 87 7

Patients served—Output 375,622 285,994 76 8

Students improved—Outcome 47,286 59,390 126 75

Students served—Output 136,647 142,465 104 98

Workers/trainees improved—Outcome 12,788 9,945 78 48

Workers/trainees served—Output 13,831 22,247 161 51

Note: Only includes projects with complete data (n=256). 

Source: ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants FY 2004–FY 2010, RTI 

The most frequently used performance measures across all 

projects were 

 students served (101 projects), 

 telecommunications sites (99 projects), 

 workers/trainees served (54 projects), and 

 participants served (53 projects). 

Across all categories, the paired performance measures show 

that most categories met or exceeded their goals for at-close 

performance. With the exception of leveraged private 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-30

investment, all of the performance measures showed at least a 

70 percent attainment of goals for the portfolio as a whole. 

Some measures, such as households improved, were much 

higher than expected; therefore, the at-close measures are 

over 100 percent. 

When taken as a whole, the projected and at-close performance 

of grants varied across categories. This variation is partially due 

to the challenge of predicting project outputs and outcomes in 

the grant proposal, as well as the long-term nature of some of 

the outputs and outcomes. Leveraged private investment and 

businesses created, for example, can take several years to 

reach their target and may not be adequately captured at the 

end of the grant period. In Section 6.2.3, we discuss the kinds 

of longer-term impacts grants had, as noted by the survey 

respondents. Finally, because of the highly diverse grantmaking 

across states and across types of telecommunications and 

technology projects, it is difficult to ascertain if and why certain 

types of grants reached their desired output levels. From our 

survey and case study findings, we see that operational issues 

across project types explain the degree of performance. For 

example, we found that staffing issues and lack of third-party 

funding are examples of challenges grantees faced in 

implementing projects (see Section 6.2.2).

5.5.3 Grant-Level Performance 

At-Close Performance Compared with Projected 

Performance at the Grant Level 

At the grant level, RTI defined several indicators to capture the 

gradations of success for grants: 

 if a grant met or exceeded all of its goals 

 if a grant met its goals 

 if a grant reached within 85 percent of all of its goals 

These indicators allowed us to understand gradations of project 

performance, and this section outlines how these indicators 

differ across different categories. Table 5-9 shows that 55

percent of projects reached all of their goals at least within 85 

percent of their projected outputs and outcomes. Of that 55 

percent, 14 percent of projects exceeded all of their goals, 

which is a notable achievement when projects have multiple 

goals, and 50 percent of projects met or exceeded their goals. 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-31 

Reached 

within 85%

of Goals

Met or 

Exceeded 

Goals 

Exceeded 

Goals 

Count of grants 140 127 35

% of all grants 55 50 14

Note: Includes projects with complete data (n=256). Projects can fall in 

multiple categories, so totals do not equal 256 or 100%. 

Source: RTI, ARC. 

Using 85 percent of an output or outcome as a threshold, RTI 

identified how many of the projects had reached their goals and 

what percentage of those goals had been reached. Figure 5-14

shows the distribution of projects by the percentage of the atclose measures that reached within 85 percent of the projected 

goals. 

Figure 5-14. Count of Grants by Share of Goals Reached within 85% of Projected (n=256)

Note: Only includes projects with complete data (n=256). 

Source: ARC.net, RTI.

Table 5-9. Performance 

at the Grant Level 

(n=256)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-32

As the figure shows, 140 projects (55 percent of those with 

complete data) reached within 85 percent of all of their 

performance goals, while 39 projects (27 percent) did not reach 

any of their performance goals within 85 percent.76

Looking at both ends of this spectrum, we see interesting 

differences between the 140 projects that reached within 85 

percent of their projected goals and the 39 that did not reach 

any of their projected goals. In this section, “reached” refers to 

coming within 85 percent of meeting a project’s projected 

individual goals. Table 5-10 outlines some of the 

characteristics of projects that reached their goals and those 

that did not. 

Table 5-10. Characteristics of Projects that Reached 0% or 100% of their Projected Goals 

Characteristic

Share of Project Goals Reached within 85%a

0% Reached (n=39) 100% Reached (n=140)

Average ARC funding $136,192 $120,929

Most frequent primary 

beneficiaries

1. Training: 31%

2. Health: 23%

3. Education: 23%

1. Education: 31%

2. Local government: 21%

3. Community development: 19%

Most frequent functional 

framework 

1. Indirect: 38%

2. Other technology: 36%

3. Adoption: 36%

1. Indirect: 46%

2. Applications: 29%

3. Adoption: 25%

Most frequent states 1. Alabama: 18%

2. Maryland: 15%

3. Mississippi: 12%

1. Alabama: 22%

2. Pennsylvania: 12%

3. Maryland: 11%

Most frequently used 

performance measures

1. Students served: 41%

2. Students improved: 36%

3.Workers/trainees served: 26%

4. Workers/trainees improved: 

18%

5. Jobs created: 15%

1. Telecommunications sites: 

41%

2. Students served: 36%

3. Students improved: 26%

4. Participants served: 24%

5. Participants improved: 23%

Percentage with a primary 

or substantial impact on 

distressed areas

41% 39%

a Goals reached defined as at-close performance measures coming within 85% of projected outputs and outcomes. 

Source: ARC.net, RTI. Only includes projects with complete data (n=256). 

 

76 In this analysis, it is important to recognize that, in some cases, the 

at-close data are insufficient to capture relative success or failure of 

projects, because the effects are intended to be long term. 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-33 

Projects that did not reach any of their goals received, on 

average, more funding from ARC and were most likely to be 

targeted toward training. Projects that reached their goals were 

most frequently in education and, on average, had smaller 

budgets. These differences could indicate that grants with 

larger budgets were more ambitious than grants with smaller 

budgets in their projected goals. Alternatively, some 

performance measures, such as telecommunications sites 

created, may be inherently easier to project, measure, and 

achieve. 

In fact, grants that did not reach within 85 percent of their 

goals often used performance measures that are more difficult 

to achieve in the short term, including students and workers 

improved and jobs created. Those that reached all of their goals 

tended to have more tangible goals, such as 

telecommunications sites created and participants served. This 

difference in goals indicates the difficulty of doing side-by-side 

comparisons across projects with different measures: those 

with more tangible, short-term outcomes might be perceived as 

more successful because their goals were more feasible to 

accomplish at the close of the grant. 

Overall, the traits of the grant and the performance measures 

used have only a weak connection with grant performance, 

indicating that other unobserved factors are likely at play. 

Given the wide diversity of grants and limited contextual 

information, it is difficult to say why some grants reached 

within 85 percent of their performance goals and why some 

grants did not. Section 6 and Section 7 provide insights about 

specific challenges to implementation and factors that helped 

grants reach their performance goals. Finally, as we note 

throughout the report and in Section 9.4.2, 

telecommunications and technology investments are long-term 

endeavors. The survey shows that long-term impacts can be 

significant for grantees (see Section 6.2.4), and performance 

outputs and outcomes have often not had enough time to fully 

materialize by the end of ARC grants. 

At-Close Performance Assessed by Grant Function 

Projects with a direct or indirect broadband Internet component 

experienced the highest levels of performance, while projects 

with applications, adoption, or other technology components 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-34 

were in the next tier (see Figure 5-15). Projects that were 

uncategorized experienced the lowest levels of performance. 

Figure 5-15. Share of Projects that Reached within 85% or Higher of Projected Goals by 

Function (n=256)

Source: ARC.net, RTI

In terms of beneficiary, local government and community 

development projects had the highest share of projects that 

reached within 85 percent of their goals, whereas training and 

business development projects had the lowest share of projects 

that reached within 85 percent of their goals (see 

Figure 5-16). As mentioned in Section 5.5.1, this difference 

could be a result of the inherent difficulty and uncertainty in 

projecting goals for measures that often fall in categories like 

businesses served, businesses created, leveraged private 

investment, workers/trainees served, and workers/trainees 

improved. Many of these impacts take several years to take 

hold, and as Section 6.2.3 explains in more detail, these 

projects take more time to realize their full impact. 

Understanding Performance of Multifunctional Projects

When constructing the functional framework for evaluation, RTI 

considered that projects could have multiple functions. For 

example: An EMR software effort coupled with a training 

program would classify as both an application of broadband 

Internet technology and an adoption program. RTI believes that 

it is important to look at how the performance of 
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-35 

Figure 5-16. Share of Projects that Reached within 85% or Higher of Projected Goals by 

Primary Beneficiary (n=256)

Source: ARC.net, RTI

multifunctional projects compared with the performance of 

single-function grants. RTI identified 101 multifunctional 

projects77 within the portfolio, which it classified as having two 

or more functions in its framework. Table 5-11 lists the 

number of projects that fall in each category. 

Functions Projects 

1 155

2 91

3 9

4 1

Source: ARC.net, RTI

Of the projects with complete data, those with more functional 

dimensions had roughly similar performance to those with a 

single function when comparing projected numbers to at-close 

numbers. Table 5-12 shows the share of grants that met 85 

percent of their goals, the share of grants that met or exceeded 

their goals, the share of grants that exceeded their goals, and 

the number of projects in each category. 

 

77 Number refers only to projects with complete data.

Table 5-11. Number of 

Multifunctional Grants 

(n=256)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-36

Number of 

Functions

Grants, All Goals, %

n

Reached 

85% 

Met or 

Exceeded Exceeded 

1 56 52 16 155

2 53 45 11 91

3 56 56 0 9

Note: Includes projects with complete data (n=256). A single grant with four 

functions is not displayed in this table. 

Source: ARC.net, RTI 

Performance in Distressed Counties 

Of the 310 projects included in the evaluation, 129 were 

designated as having a substantial or primary impact on 

distressed counties. ARC emphasizes making grants to projects 

that will affect economically distressed areas. These projects 

have unique challenges as mentioned previously in 

Section 2.3.2: they are not able to leverage as much outside 

funding and rely more on ARC funding. However, as 

Table 5-13 shows, they perform on par with or better than the 

grant portfolio as a whole. 

Table 5-13. Projected and At-Close Performance of ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants with a Substantial or Primary Impact on Distressed Counties or Areas: 

FY 2004–FY 2010 

Performance Measure

Projected 

Number

At-Close 

Number

Percentage

Attainment, %

Businesses created—Outcome 111 69 62

Businesses served—Output 2,423 1,848 76

Households improved—Outcome — 20,917 —

Jobs created—Outcome 1,090 1,901 174

Jobs retained—Outcome 735 735 100

Leveraged private investment—Outcome $67,959,190 $9,434,217 14

Linear feet—Output 290,654 296,654 102

Participants improved—Outcome 83,101 81,570 98

Participants served—Output 108,195 119,547 110

Patients improved—Outcome 17,765 24,008 135

Patients served—Output 70,289 34,608 49

Plans/reports—Output 39 39 100

Programs implemented—Outcome 20 31 155

(continued) 

Table 5-12. Share of 

Grants Reaching Various 

Levels of Performance
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-37 

Table 5-13. Projected and At-Close Performance of ARC Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants with a Substantial or Primary Impact on Distressed Counties or Areas: 

FY 2004–FY 2010 (continued) 

Performance Measure

Projected 

Amount

At-Close 

Amount

Percentage

Attainment, %

Students improved—Outcome 19,702 25,904 131

Students served—Output 41,841 45,816 110

Telecommunications sites—Outcome 196 244 124

Workers/trainees improved—Outcome 3,938 4,616 117

Workers/trainees served—Output 4,716 4,815 102

Note: Only includes projects with complete data that were designated as having a primary or substantial impact on 

distressed areas (n=111). Paired measures are highlighted in gray. 

Source: ARC Telecommunications and Technology Grants FY 2004–FY 2010, RTI 

As a whole, ARC grants to distressed counties or areas were 

likely to meet or exceed their performance goals. Only four 

performance measures had lower performance than the overall 

average (businesses created and served, patients served, and 

leveraged private investment), while 13 measures had equal or 

higher performance. 

5.6 STATE PROFILES 

This section offers profiles of each state’s grant activity. Each 

state profile gives an overview of the allocation of grant 

funding, the most common types of projects, and general 

observations about grantmaking patterns in each state. It is 

important to note that states select their own priorities for 

grantmaking across all ARC program areas. Thus, these profiles 

simply reflect the grants that the states selected for 

telecommunications and technology projects. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-38 

Alabama

Total number of Appalachian counties: 37

Total number of telecommunications and technology grants: 60

Total ARC investment in telecommunications and technology: $9.3M

Total investment in telecommunications and technology: $18.4M

Average total funding per project: $307,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Education (23)

Local government (10)

Community development (9)

Grant Spotlight: In 2010, Whatley Health Services received 

$166,000 from ARC to start a remote medical and dental clinic 

using telemedicine technology, bringing low-cost, effective 

medical care to people in isolated, rural regions of the state. At 

close in 2012, the project had served over 6,200 patients, and 

as of 2015, it has expanded to eight locations. 

Notes: 

 Alabama had the most grants (60) and received the 

most funding ($9.3M) from ARC in telecommunications 

and technology during this period. 

 Forty-eight percent of ARC grants were designated as 

having a primary or substantial impact on distressed 

areas. 

Figure 5-17. Alabama 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-39 

Georgia 

Total number of Appalachian counties: 37

Total number of grants: 9

Total ARC funding: $1.3M

Total funding: $3.6M

Average total funding per project: $403,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Business development (3) 

Education (2)

Community development (2)

Grant Spotlight: Coosa Valley Technical College 

Entrepreneurship Incubator received $198K from ARC in 2004. 

At its close in 2005, it had leveraged $4.9 million in private 

investment and created 46 jobs. As of 2015, the business 

expansion center is part of Georgia Northwestern Technical 

College and is integrated into the economic development 

mission of the college.

Notes: 

 Nearly $1 million in ARC funding went to four large 

economic development projects for business 

development and workforce training.

 None of Georgia’s projects met or exceeded their 

projected goals at close, but those surveyed had longterm effects after the closeout date, including job 

creation, entrepreneurship, and improved medical 

services that exceeded projected measures. 

Figure 5-18. Georgia 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-40 

Kentucky 

Total number of Appalachian counties: 54

Total number of grants: 27

Total ARC funding: $6.3M

Total funding: $12.6M

Average total funding per project: $465,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Training (8)

Community development (8)

Education (7)

Grant Spotlight: In 2007, the Regional High Growth Training 

Center in Somerset, KY, received $500K from ARC as part of a 

$2.5 million investment in training electric line workers. The 

program trained, on average, 100 workers per year and 

prepared them to quickly advance as electric line workers.

Notes: 

 Ninety-six percent of Kentucky’s ARC grants had either a 

substantial or primary effect on economically distressed 

counties, the highest of any state. 

Figure 5-19. Kentucky 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-41 

Maryland

Total number of Appalachian counties: 3

Total number of grants: 32

Total ARC funding: $2.4M

Total funding: $6.4M

Average total funding per project: $201K

Most common beneficiaries:

Education (17)

Training (6)

Health (3)

Grant Spotlight: Allconet2 Broadband to Business Electronic 

Infrastructure Equipment, Phase II (MD-14579-I). $1.2M total, 

$495K from ARC for physical infrastructure including towers for 

mobile data connections. 

Notes: 

 Maryland’s telecommunications and technology grants 

primarily went to educational initiatives.

 Maryland’s three Appalachian counties are designated as 

either transitional or competitive by ARC’s economic 

development indicators.

 None of Maryland’s projects had an impact on distressed 

counties or areas. None of Maryland’s three Appalachian 

counties are considered distressed.

Figure 5-20. Maryland 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-42 

Mississippi 

Total number of Appalachian counties: 24

Total number of grants: 24

Total ARC funding: $5.2M

Total funding: $11M

Average total funding per project: $457,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Education (12)

Community development (6)

Grant Spotlight: The Okolona Public School District received a 

follow-up grant for 20 new computer stations, a new printer, 

and the addition of an electronic whiteboard to further enhance 

the existing technology facility. The upgraded equipment 

enabled over 500 students and nearly 100 adult participants to 

achieve specific benchmarks in computer use, academic, and 

vocational skill development.

Notes: 

 Fifteen of the 23 projects involved equipment 

investments for education and training.

 Seventy-one percent of Mississippi’s telecommunications 

and technology grants went to projects with a 

substantial or primary impact on distressed areas.

Figure 5-21. Mississippi 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-43 

 ARC funded over 75 percent of the total budget for 

education projects in Mississippi, most of which affected 

distressed areas. 

 The Tupelo/Lee County Regional Business Incubator 

leveraged nearly $2 million in other federal funds from 

the TVA and other federal organizations. Despite high 

levels of leveraged funding, its at-close performance 

measures were lower than projected. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-44 

New York

Total number of Appalachian counties: 14

Total number of grants: 25

Total ARC funding: $2.2M

Total funding: $4.8M

Average total funding per project: $191,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Education (7)

Community development (5)

Local government (4) 

Training (4)

Grant Spotlight: United Health Services received a $130K 

grant from ARC in 2005 to expand a virtual pediatric 

telemedicine center. With its seven new sites, it trained 162 

professionals and served 282 patients within the first year of 

operation, meeting or exceeding all of its goals.

Notes: 

 New York has no Appalachian counties designated as 

distressed, and no projects affected distressed areas. 

Figure 5-22. New York 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-45 

North Carolina

Total number of Appalachian 

counties: 29

Total number of grants: 8

Total ARC funding: $1.9M

Total funding: $6.5M

Average total funding per project: 

$815,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Education (3)

Training (2)

Grant Spotlight: Only 1 of the 8 grants had a significant 

impact on distressed areas: 2007 Graham County Broadband 

Fiber Optic Extension: $200K from ARC went towards 77,000 

linear feet of fiber and 12 new telecommunications sites to 

connect municipal services including the local library to 

broadband Internet. 

Notes: 

 All of the grants to North Carolina organizations were for 

equipment investments. 

 Four of the eight grants were technology equipment for 

educational institutions, including laptops in classrooms.

Figure 5-23. North 

Carolina Funding for 

ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants: FY 2004–FY 

2010
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-46 

Ohio

Total number of Appalachian counties: 32

Total number of grants: 21

Total ARC funding: $3.4M

Total funding: $9.3M

Average total funding per project: $444,000

Most common beneficiaries:

 Health (7)

 Training (7)

 Local government (3)

Grant Spotlight: ARC granted $1.5 million to seven healthrelated projects in Ohio during the 7-year period. Grantees 

included the East OH Regional Hospital, Ashtabula County 

Medical Center, Marietta Memorial Hospital, and Appalachian 

Primary Care.

Notes: 

 Nineteen of the 21 grants were investments in 

equipment. 

 Forty-eight percent of Ohio projects had a substantial or 

primary impact on distressed counties. 

Figure 5-24. Ohio 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-47 

Pennsylvania 

Total number of Appalachian counties: 52

Total number of grants: 29

Total ARC funding: $2.1M

Total funding: $12.7M

Average total funding per project: $437,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Local government (9) 

Community development (7)

Training (7)

Grant Spotlight: SEDA-Council of Governments received eight 

telecommunications and technology grants, the highest number 

of grants by a single recipient during the 7-year period.

Notes: 

 Two of the largest projects in the portfolio were business 

development projects in Pennsylvania, each with 

budgets over $2.5 million, leveraging over 95 percent of 

non-ARC funding.

 Thirteen of the 27 projects involved purchasing 

equipment for a local network or computer lab. 

Figure 5-25. 

Pennsylvania Funding 

for ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants: FY 2004–FY 

2010
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-48 

33 South Carolina

Total number of Appalachian counties: 6

Total number of grants: 2

Total ARC funding: $165,000

Total funding: $423,000

Average total funding per project: $211,452

Most common beneficiaries:

Education (1)

Training (1)

Grant Spotlight: In 2007, Appalachian Council of 

Governments matched $65,000 in ARC funding to conduct a 

strategic telecommunications needs assessment and business 

plan. ARC funds underwrote the costs of personnel and 

consultants. The plan delivered detailed broadband inventories, 

needs analysis, recommended services and recommendations 

for future deployment of more high-speed broadband in the 

three-county region. This strategic plan laid the groundwork for 

Oconee County securing $9.6 million in follow-on funding from 

the National Telecommunications & Information Administration 

Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program in 2009.

Figure 5-26. South 

Carolina Funding for 

ARC Telecommunications and Technology 

Grants: FY 2004–FY 

2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-49 

Notes: 

 South Carolina had the fewest grants (2) and the lowest 

amount of ARC funding ($165K) in telecommunications 

and technology over the 7-year period. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-50 

Tennessee 

Total number of Appalachian 

counties: 52

Total number of grants: 10

Total ARC funding: $1.1M

Total funding: $2.2M

Average total funding per 

project: $223,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Health (3)

Local government (3)

Grant Spotlight: In 2009, ARC made an $11K grant to the 

Southeast Tennessee Development District to upgrade GIS 

technology in Chattanooga. The program invested in software 

and equipment to bring the local GIS capabilities up to national 

standards to lead to more accurate planning, better 

infrastructure, and greater business competitiveness.

Notes: 

 Forty percent of Tennessee’s grants went to projects 

with a primary or substantial impact on distressed areas. 

Figure 5-27. Tennessee 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis

5-51 

Virginia 

Total number of Appalachian counties: 

25

Total number of grants: 11

Total ARC funding: $692,000

Total funding: $1.4M

Average total funding per project: 

$129,000 

Most common beneficiaries:

Business development (6)

Training (4)

Community development (1)

Grant Spotlight: In 2005, ARC granted $21.5K to underwrite 

the installation of 18,000 linear feet of “dark fiber” as part of 

the Richlands Municipal Area Network to improve Internet

service in the downtown, expanding high-speed Internet access 

to businesses. At close in 2008, 37 businesses had connected 

to the fiber network. 

Notes: 

 Only 1 of the 11 grants to Virginia projects completed all 

of its projected performance goals. 

 Five of the 11 Virginia grants were related to business 

development through e-commerce. 

Figure 5-28. Virginia 

Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-52 

West Virginia

Total number of Appalachian counties: 55

Total number of grants: 12

Total ARC funding: $2.3M

Total funding: $4.8M

Average total funding per project: $396,000

Most common beneficiaries:

Training (5)

Education (3)

Business development (2) 

Grant Spotlight: One of the largest grants was to start the 

Erma Byrd Higher Education Center, an initiative started by 

Forward Southern WV in 2007. As of 2015, it serves Bluefield 

State College, Concord University, and Marshall University, as 

well as New River Community and Technical College. It offers 

technical, bachelor’s, and master’s degree programs to local 

students. 

Notes: 

 Four of the grants were part of the ongoing Mission West 

Virginia STEPUP program, investing in community 

computer labs for workforce training.

 Eighty-three percent of projects in West Virginia had a 

substantial or primary impact on distressed areas.

Figure 5-29. West 

Virginia Funding for ARC 

Telecommunications and 

Technology Grants: FY 

2004–FY 2010
Section 5 — Grant Portfolio Analysis 

5-53 

5.7 SUMMARY FINDINGS 

ARC’s portfolio of grants served over 600,000 businesses and 

people, including 286,000 patients, 152,000 students, and 

22,500 workers/trainees. ARC did not take a one-size-fits-all 

approach for this portfolio; states made decisions on priorities 

for ARC’s approval. ARC made wide investments in terms of 

size, location, beneficiary, type of investment, and geographic 

location. It is evident from the large variation in grant activities 

that states have flexibility in how they approach 

telecommunications and technology. RTI’s function and 

beneficiary framework offers a method to organize the diverse 

grants along the broadband Internet spectrum, understanding 

that programs affect a variety of civic organizations and ARC 

program goals. This framework speaks to the importance of 

engaging multiple actors and employing multiple strategies to 

improve the delivery and adoption of telecommunications and 

technology services. 

At-close performance metrics are just one way of classifying 

how grants performed. When compared with projected outputs 

and outcomes, there is a wide range of results. Fourteen 

percent of grants in the portfolio exceeded the goals set forth 

at the beginning of the grant, 50 percent met the goals set 

forth at the beginning of the grant, and 55 percent reached 

within at least 85 percent of all goals established at the 

beginning of the grant. However, this does not mean that a 

certain percentage of projects were successful or unsuccessful. 

These are just one of many measures for evaluation, and as we 

explain in the survey results in Section 6, some grants have 

not had time to fully realize their benefits. Table 6-15 in 

Section 6 demonstrates some of the outputs and outcomes of 

grants after the closeout period. 

Grants tended to perform better, according to project closeout 

reports, when outputs and outcomes were more tangible, such 

as linear feet, telecommunications sites, plans/reports, and 

programs implemented. Impacts on people, such as students, 

participants, jobs, and households, are much more difficult to 

predict and take a longer time to show their effects. They are 

also harder to quantify. Therefore, it would be premature to 

conclude that projects with more easily quantified, tangible 

outputs and outcomes performed better. In the next section, 

we discuss how, over time, projects have culminated into larger 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

5-54

and broader impacts that go far beyond the closeout date of 

the grant. 
6-1 

Survey Analysis 

A survey of telecommunications and technology grant recipients 

allowed the team to capture impacts and insights from the ARC 

grants that are not recorded in the project closeout reports. 

Thus, the survey expanded our understanding of how the ARC 

grants affected communities and what kinds of conditions or 

circumstances may have helped enhance the grant’s 

performance. RTI reached a total of 118 grantees, representing 

a 38 percent overall response rate for the survey. Respondents 

emphasized the long-term effects of projects in metrics such as 

jobs creation, business creation, and leveraged funding, as well 

as effects on community and capacity building. They offered 

insights into how projects had affected and continue to affect 

communities after the end of the grant period.

The survey asked respondents to reflect on the grant-writing 

and implementation process, challenges faced by the project, 

follow-on funding and impacts after the grant period, 

telecommunications needs for communities moving forward, 

and the condition of their communities.

Section 6.1 outlines the survey methods, Section 6.2

summarizes the results and elucidates key findings, and 

Section 6.3 brings together conclusions. Taken as a whole, 

this section discusses the following topics:

 methods in survey outreach, survey implementation, 

and the representative nature of survey responses 

compared with the project portfolio

 how funded organizations worked on the grants and the 

degree to which grants involved the community

 past, present, and future challenges in implementing 

telecommunications and technology projects in rural 

Appalachia 

 sustainability of projects
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-2 

 how projects’ projected and at-close performance 

numbers are related to their self-reported strategies in 

grant management and implementation 

 change in perceived economic conditions over the grant 

period, and the types of perceived secondary effects 

grants had on communities 

6.1 SURVEY METHODS 

Survey methods involved extensive outreach to ARC grantees 

during the course of the evaluation and survey design process. 

In this section, we explain the response rate and compare the 

pool of respondents with the overall ARC telecommunications 

and technology portfolio. 

6.1.1 Survey Outreach 

RTI pursued three phases of outreach: 

1. grantee contact confirmation presurvey 

2. automated reminders during the survey 

3. targeted follow-up phone calls near the end of the 

survey 

The first round of outreach was the most extensive. The 

primary goal of this effort was to identify the most appropriate 

contact to answer the questions in the online survey. We began 

this process in December 2014 and concluded it in February 

2015. In some cases, this confirmation involved verifying ARC’s 

contact information on file. In other cases, project contacts 

were out of date. Employee turnover, organizational shifts, and 

changes in contact information required an extensive outreach 

by the RTI survey team to identify the most appropriate person 

to fill out the survey. This outreach also allowed for RTI staff to 

inform target survey respondents about the survey to increase 

awareness of the survey launch and answer any preliminary 

questions. 

The survey launched April 13, 2015, and closed June 30, 2015, 

a two and a half month time frame. We issued the survey to 

310 grantees to encourage full participation by all grantees and 

thus a more robust dataset to analyze findings. During the 

survey period, RTI used the web-based survey platform to issue 

email reminders to potential respondents. RTI sent follow-up 

emails every 2 weeks to individuals who partially completed or 

had not started the survey. Individuals who completed their 
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-3 

survey were not contacted again. During this survey period, 

RTI’s survey team actively helped respondents clarify questions 

about the survey. 

Toward the end of the survey period, RTI reached out to 

targeted nonrespondents to ensure representativeness of the 

survey sample. RTI monitored response rates for various 

subgroups of projects by state, target beneficiary, function, and 

year. For subgroups with low response rates, RTI called 

contacts to encourage them to complete the survey and 

responded to any questions or concerns they had about the 

survey instrument or the purpose of the study. This outreach 

permitted a more robust sample size and a broad 

representation of sample groups. 

6.1.2 Survey Design 

The survey was designed to illicit both greater detail about the 

operations and outcomes of the individual grants and a much 

stronger understanding of the broader conditions grantees face 

in their communities and how grantees perceive these 

conditions changing over time. We also designed the protocol to 

understand why and how grantees sought ARC funds and 

challenges faced in carrying out the grant. The survey design 

allows for analysts to better decipher nuances on the kinds of 

impacts communities experienced as a result of the grant and 

whether impacts were realized on time or not at all. Additional 

considerations the RTI team employed in designing the survey 

included appreciating future needs/challenges in the community 

when it comes to broadband Internet and technology adoption 

so that future ARC programming can be designed in alignment 

with documented needs in Appalachian communities. 

Once the protocol was developed, RTI programmed the survey 

using Survey Gizmo—a web survey tool. Survey methodologists 

programmed and customized the online survey to preprogram 

as much data as possible tailored for each respondent to reduce 

the burden on respondents and error in responses. For 

example, each survey respondent viewed a survey with the 

title, grant number, time frame, etc., of the grant we were 

asking them to respond to. RTI designed the survey to be 

accessible on multiple online platforms, including tablets and 

mobile phones. For the few respondents who indicated that 

they preferred telephone interviews, RTI scheduled interviews 

and recorded responses online on behalf of these respondents. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-4 

The full survey questionnaire is included in Appendix C. 

6.1.3 Survey Response Rate 

Of the 310 projects used for the evaluation, RTI received a total 

of 118 responses for a response rate of 38 percent. Of the 118 

surveys, 102 were marked as complete and an additional 16 

surveys were partially complete. “Complete” is defined as the 

respondent moving all the way through the survey instrument 

and pressing submit in the online form. It does not mean that 

every single survey question was completed. When respondents 

attempt to skip a question, an automated prompt reminds them 

to answer the question, but if respondents skip again, they are 

allowed to move forward to the next question. Therefore, it is 

possible that a “complete” survey may have some questions 

skipped or left blank. For the sake of transparency, this report 

discloses response rate counts for each question. 

As Table 6-1 shows, the response rate for complete surveys is 

32.9 percent, and adding the 16 mostly complete responses 

raises the response rate to 38.0 percent. 

“Complete” Responses

(Response Rate %)

“Complete” + Partially 

Complete Responses

(Response Rate %)

n=102

(32.9%)

n=118

(38.0%)

Source: RTI Survey 

Between 97 and 118 respondents provided answers to 

questions that were applicable to all projects. Over the course 

of the survey, there was some survey attrition as respondents 

progressed through the questions. Figure 6-1 shows the 

number of survey responses by question. 

Table 6-1. Response 

Rates
Section 6 — Survey Analysis

6-5 

Figure 6-1. Survey Attrition, Number of Responses by Question 

Note: The number of responses is displayed only for questions that apply to all respondents.

Source: RTI Survey

6.1.4 Comparing the Survey Population with All ARC Grantees

The survey population broadly represented the makeup of all 

310 ARC grantees. In this section, we show the survey 

population as compared with the entire telecommunications and 

technology portfolio by traits such as function, target 

beneficiary, state, year of funding, and distressed area 

designation. The functional breakdown of survey responses is 

representative of the overall portfolio. Figure 6-2 shows the 

survey responses by functional breakdown. Response rates 

ranged between 36 percent and 43 percent by functional 

framework category. No single category stood out as highly 

overrepresented or underrepresented.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-6 

Figure 6-2. Survey Response Rate by Project Function (n=118)

Source: RTI Survey, ARC

Survey analysts also analyzed responses by each grant’s target 

beneficiary. Figure 6-3 outlines the survey responses by 

primary target beneficiary. Response rates ranged between 26

percent and 54 percent; local government beneficiaries had the 

highest response rate partially because of the relative ease of 

outreach and strong institutional memory of local government 

organizations.

Figure 6-3. Survey Response Rate by Target Beneficiary (n=118)

Source: RTI Survey, ARC
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-7 

Finally, RTI acknowledged the value of multidimensional 

projects and broke down those that served more than one 

function in the framework. Table 6-2 outlines the 

multifunctionality of the projects that make up the survey 

sample. The most frequent response (48) was for projects that 

were multifunctional with at least one telecommunications 

function, with a 40 percent response rate. The highest response 

rate was 50 percent for single-function projects that were 

applications of broadband Internet. 

Function Count

Representativeness of 

Project Portfolio, %

(1) Direct 8 27

(2) Indirect 9 29

(3) Applications 10 50

(4) Adoption 9 31

(5) Other technology 25 42

(6) Multifunctional with at 

least one telecommunications 

function

48 40

(7) All other multifunctional 

projects

9 43

Total 118 38

Source: RTI Survey, ARC 

RTI achieved the highest response rates of over 56 percent 

from grantees in North Carolina and Maryland and the lowest at 

less than 17 percent from West Virginia and from Commission 

projects. Overall, RTI achieved a response rate of 50 percent or 

higher in four states and lower than 30 percent in only three. 

Low response rates in those areas were due to employee 

turnover or organizations that were no longer operational. 

Figure 6-4 displays the survey response rate by state. 

The highest number of responses by state were from Alabama, 

Maryland, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, each with over 10 

survey responses. The highest percentage of responses came 

from North Carolina, which had a lower total number of 

projects. 

Table 6-2. Survey 

Respondents by 

Multidimensional 

Function (n=118)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-8 

Figure 6-4. Survey Response Rate by State

Source: RTI Survey, ARC

RTI expected to have a greater response rate from more recent 

projects, and as Figure 6-5 shows, the survey response rate 

was stronger for more recent grants and is a result of better 

institutional memory and better access to contacts who remain 

in organizations that are familiar with the project. Projects from 

fiscal year 2010 had the highest response rate at 51 percent. It 

was more difficult for RTI to find appropriate contacts with 

institutional memory or records of projects from 2004 and 

2005, leading to a lower response rate. The figure shows total 

number of projects, the number of survey responses, and the 

survey response rate by fiscal year of funding.

Finally, the survey received the lowest response rate from 

projects with a substantial or primary impact on distressed 

areas. As Figure 6-6 shows, 44 percent of grantees for 

projects with no impact on distressed areas responded to the 

survey, and that number declines as projects approach 

substantial and primary impact. The largest number of projects 

and responses had a “limited” impact on distressed areas.
Section 6 — Survey Analysis

6-9 

Figure 6-5. Survey Response Rate by Fiscal Year of Funding

Source: RTI Survey, ARC

Figure 6-6. Survey Response Rate by Impact on Distressed Areas

Source: RTI Survey, ARC

We had lower survey response rates for older projects, projects 

with a primary impact on distressed counties, and select states 

including West Virginia. Job training projects and Commissionfunded projects are also less represented by the survey results. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-10

Despite these traits being less represented in the survey 

population, the project traits as a whole are largely 

representative of the entire grant portfolio as a whole. 

6.2 SURVEY ANALYSIS 

The RTI team constructed the survey so that its findings would 

best help ARC expand its knowledge and understanding of the 

kinds of impacts its telecommunications and technology 

projects had and how ARC can improve its grantmaking in the 

future to positively affect Appalachian communities in the 

future. The answers to the questions in the survey helped the 

RTI team analyze impacts after project closeout and delve 

deeper into the nature of each project more closely. The survey 

findings illustrate the

 background and operations of each grant, 

 impacts of the grants, 

 sustainability of the initiative funded by the grant, 

 community conditions before and after the grant 

expired, and 

 future needs and challenges of Appalachian communities 

in telecommunications and technology. 

After we profile the role of the survey respondent, we then 

analyze the survey findings for each of these themes in turn 

below. The survey protocol is in Appendix C. 

6.2.1 Role of Survey Respondents in the Grant 

Most respondents who filled out the survey were directly 

involved in managing the grant application, managing the 

project, or staffing the project. Table 6-3 shows the detailed 

breakdown of each respondent’s roles. Respondents who 

checked “other” were either successors in a certain position, 

grantee leadership and senior management, or cofunders. With 

76 percent of respondents directly involved in the project 

(project manager, staff, or grant application/grant manager), 

the survey results are much more likely to reflect the actualities 

of the grant operations and realities about the degree to which 

grants affected the community. 
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-11 

Role Count Percentage

Project manager 33 29

Project staff 13 11

Grant application/grant manager 41 36

Staff with partner organization 6 5

Community member involved in or 

aware of the project

1 1

Local government employee involved in 

or aware of the project

6 5

Other 14 12

Total 114 100

Source: RTI Survey Q4 

6.2.2 Grant Background and Operations 

In this section, we augment the understanding of how ARC 

grants were designed and implemented by offering additional 

information on factors not captured in ARC’s project database 

and discussed in Section 5. The grant application and 

implementation process varies across organizations, and 

different methods of grant management and project process 

can offer insight into project performance. Where possible, we 

couple the findings from the survey with data on project 

performance, as reported in the project closeout reports, to 

ascertain if certain operational or process features tended to 

derive higher or lower levels of performance. We also asked 

survey respondents about the kinds of resources that would 

have helped elevate the positive impacts of their grant. 

Management and Technical Assistance 

The majority of grantees undertook their projects with internal 

resources: 28 of 115 respondents (24 percent) indicated that 

they had contracted help in developing, implementing, 

managing, or evaluating the grant. Of those, seven projects (6 

percent) contracted with an outside entity to help develop the 

grant proposal. Twenty-five of the respondents (22 percent) 

contracted outside help in managing, implementing, or 

evaluating projects. Four respondents indicated doing both. 

RTI data analysts joined survey data with the ARC project 

database to examine any patterns among survey respondents 

Table 6-3. Respondent 

Role in the ARC-Funded 

Project (n=114)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-12

who used technical assistance in grant writing or project 

implementation and project performance. Given that only 6 

percent of respondents (seven respondents) used grant writing 

assistance (a very small sample size), it is very difficult to 

determine a meaningful association. However, we did examine 

the performance of these grants and did not find any indication 

that grants with technical assistance in grant writing 

outperformed other projects. The less formal grant application 

process may also have led to grantees needing less technical 

assistance as compared with other kinds of grant applications. 

Table 6-4 shows that the use of outside technical assistance in 

implementing, managing, or evaluating the grant is not related 

to higher at-close project performance numbers. 

Technical 

Assistance

All Goals

n

Reached 

within 85% Met or Exceeded

Yes 43% 30% 23

No 57% 49% 65

Don’t Know 63% 63% 8

Note: Only includes projects with complete data and complete survey responses 

to Q5 (n=96). 

Source: RTI Survey Q5, ARC 

Community Involvement 

In this section, we move from factors that illuminate how 

grants were crafted and implemented to more process-driven 

characteristics on how grantees engaged the community. 

Community advisory groups are used in grants to help projects 

integrate the needs and functions of the community. On 

average, 35 percent of survey respondents indicated that their 

projects involved a community advisory group (Q9). Training 

projects were the most likely to use a community advisory 

group (43 percent), and local government projects were the 

least likely (14 percent). Education and community 

development projects also had high rates of community 

advisory group participation. Figure 6-7 shows the use of 

community advisory groups by target beneficiary. 

Table 6-4. Project AtClose Performance for 

Projects with and 

without Technical 

Assistance in 

Implementing, 

Managing, or Evaluating 

Projects (n=96) 
Section 6 — Survey Analysis

6-13 

Figure 6-7. Use of a Community Advisory Group by Target Beneficiary of Projects

Source: RTI Survey Q9, ARC

To capture the effects of community advisory groups on project 

performance, RTI compared the at-close attainment of project 

performance goals of projects with and without community 

advisory groups. As Table 6-5 shows, projects with an 

advisory group were more likely to reach their goals within 85

percent, but no more or less likely to meet or exceed them.78

Community 

Advisory Group 

Participation 

Reached within 

85% of Goals

Met or 

Exceeded 

Goals n 

Yes 60% 43% 30

No 48% 44% 52

Don’t Know 70% 60% 10

Note: Only includes projects with complete data and complete survey responses 

to Q9 (n=92). 

Source: RTI Survey Q9, ARC

Challenges Encountered and Additional Resources 

Desired to Increase Impact

Respondents were given the option to identify challenges in 

carrying out the project. Of the 106 survey respondents, 47 

reported facing some challenges in carrying out the project (45 

 

78 None of these differences were statistically significant.

Table 6-5. Project AtClose Performance for 

Projects with and 

without a Community 

Advisory Group
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-14

percent). Thus, more than half of the respondents (55 percent) 

did not self-report any challenges. 

Table 6-6 outlines the most frequent challenges cited by 

survey respondents. Issues with staffing dominate the 

challenges that grantees faced—a total of 22 when lack of 

expertise (9), time (8), and turnover (5) are combined. 

Difficulty in securing outside funding is the second most cited 

challenge: 12 respondents cited this as a challenge their project 

faced. 

Response Count

Experienced challenges in carrying out the project

Of those:

47

Third-party or additional resources did not come 

through

12

Staff lacked expertise 9

Staff unable to devote sufficient time 8

Staff turnover 5

Unexpected problems that made it difficult to devote 

attention to the ARC project

3

Lack of support from leadership 0

Other 31

No challenges in carrying out the project 59

Note: Respondents had the option to select more than one challenge; 

therefore, totals of detailed responses will sum to greater than 47. 

Source: RTI Survey Q8 

“Other” responses were the most common in response to this 

question with 31 respondents. This underscores the uniqueness 

of the challenges that each project faced. The following topics 

were themes within the other category: 

 Poor communication with contractors or technical 

support resulted because of a lack of knowledge about 

technology. 

 Demand for services was greater than anticipated: the 

grant could not adequately serve all of those who 

needed it. 

 Financial issues related to the 2008 economic crisis were 

a challenge. 

Table 6-6. Challenges in 

Carrying Out the Project 

(n=106)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-15 

 Few or no providers of broadband Internet service 

served a region. Applications or technologies that 

depend on high-speed Internet cannot be fully effective 

without access to service, and a lack of competition 

among providers makes costs unaffordable. 

– One respondent highlighted the noticeable difference 

in pricing for their county versus the neighbor area: 

“We had three providers of Internet services in the 

county but none of their service areas overlapped 

meaning that there was no real competition and this 

helped increase costs above what was being charged 

in neighboring more populous counties.”

 Lack of knowledge or awareness in the local community 

about technology creates barriers to adoption. 

Augmenting the understanding of organizational challenges, we 

then asked respondents to rank the top three factors that 

would have helped the project have a greater impact. As 

expected, respondents most frequently cited more funding and 

more time as factors that would have helped the grant have 

greater impact. The responses are shown in Table 6-7. 

Factor

Weighted 

Score Rank

More funding 159 1

More time 109 2

More awareness about the project 85 3

More flexibility in grant requirements 76 4

Greater community buy-in and/or support 62 5

Better technical assistance 44 6

Better trained staff 38 7

Greater support from organizational 

leadership

26 8

Other 20 9

Note: Score is a weighted calculation. Items ranked first are valued higher than 

the following ranks; the score is the sum of all weighted rank counts. 

Source: RTI Survey Q10 

Table 6-7. Top Factors 

that Would Have Helped 

the Project have a 

Greater Impact (n=109)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-16

Although it is not surprising that respondents would have 

preferred more money and more time, their comments on other 

highly ranked responses shed light on the nature of the issues 

that projects encountered.79

 More awareness about the project: Respondents cited 

low turnout at training events, difficulty with publicizing, 

lack of interest from some staff and community 

members, and time lags between the grant award and 

the community adoption of a project. 

– One grantee noted that there was nearly a 10-year 

lag between their grant-funded planning efforts and 

widespread adoption of the plan. 

– Another noted a contrast between great support 

from leadership and a lack of understanding among 

citizens about the project and its potential benefits. 

 More flexibility in grant requirements: Some grantees 

mentioned the challenge of management and paperwork 

pertaining to the grant, and others expressed concerns 

about ARC’s grant priorities. 

– “We had hoped that ARC would have emphasized 

investments in fiber optics technology rather than 

wireless broadband, as the fiber would still be viable 

today.”

 More cooperation from third parties: Respondents 

commonly cited a general lack of cooperation or 

communication between all of the parties involved in a 

project: 

– poor coordination with existing telecommunications 

companies in reference to using existing 

infrastructure. 

– lack of oversight of information technology (IT) 

contractors, stemming from poor communication 

between project managers and contractors. 

– difficulty in sharing a long-term vision with middle 

managers 

 Greater community buy-in and/or support: The 

responses were closely related to those about a lack of 

awareness about the project. A lack of community buyin and support was often the result of misunderstanding 

the technical nature of a project. 

 

79 All responses below are taken from the open-ended responses to the 

RTI Survey Q10. 
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-17 

– A common theme was a fear or lack of 

understanding about new technology; as a result, 

organizations were unwilling to support the project. 

– One respondent noted that access to adequate 

transportation limited participation in the project. 

Common themes emerge from these responses that speak to 

the challenges of development work in rural areas. Some 

respondents explained that if community members are not 

familiar with technology, they are more likely to ignore offers 

for technical assistance and will be less likely to participate in or 

support the project. Leadership, communication, and 

community buy-in are essential to a project’s success, and 

success can be difficult when there are barriers to participation. 

End-of-Project Evaluations 

We got mix of results when we asked respondents if they 

conducted end-of-project evaluations. Thirty-seven percent 

reported that they did conduct end-of-project evaluations, 37 

percent reported that they did not conduct end-of-project 

evaluations, and 27 percent did not know. 

Meeting ARC’s Expectations 

To complement our understanding about a project’s ability to 

meet expected goals at project closeout, we also asked 

respondents for their perception of whether their project met 

ARC’s expectations. When asked about whether their project 

met expectations, 96 percent of survey respondents said their 

projects either met or exceeded expectations. Figure 6-8

displays the responses from the survey. Despite the fact that 

nearly all survey respondents believed their projects met or 

exceeded expectations, only 50 percent of total projects in the 

portfolio met or exceeded stated project goals (see Section 

5.5.3). Examining the survey pool alone, only 48 percent of the 

grants met or exceeded project goals. It is important to note 

that the perception of meeting or exceeding expectations does 

not always align with the performance metrics of each grant. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-18 

Figure 6-8. Did the Project Meet ARC’s Expectations? (n=103)

Source: RTI Survey Q15

Most notably, no respondents identified their project as not 

meeting ARC’s expectations. Additionally, respondents cited a 

diverse range of factors that led to the ability of the project to 

meet or exceed expectations. Common themes in their 

responses include the following: 

 Greater demand than anticipated for technology and 

services 

 Staff capability and willingness to use new technology

– After listing efficiency gains across numerous county 

departments, one grantee summarized how their 

expectations were exceeded in direct relation to their 

staffs’ improved ability to provide public services: 

“We continue to grow and be better connected for 

the service to our citizens.”

 Increased human capital through training

– One grantee saw how skill development transformed 

employers’ responses: “The project proved there was 

interest and demand, even though the limited 

number of businesses participating at that time had 

very limited resources to support their own efforts. 

As the community (populace) developed widespread 

computer skills the introduction of computers in the 

workplace grew at a feverish pace.”

 Support from state and local governments 
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-19 

 Local support from the community and business 

partners 

– For example, in one community a local organization 

“used resources and local partners to extend and 

expand the reach of the original project.”

 Better communication, collaboration, and efficiency 

among stakeholders 

– Another grantee saw how the collaborative nature of 

the ARC support had unexpected, positive ripple 

effects on their area’s long-term growth: “This grant 

required several partnerships to be formed between 

the local government, educational institutions, local 

power providers, and local economic development 

organizations. If no other impacts were realized, the 

benefits of pulling these groups together to work on 

a common problem and solution were lasting and 

important to our long-term economic development 

prospects.”

 Strong leadership from program managers and project 

managers80

The results from these questions suggest ways that ARC can 

design grantmaking in the future to improve grant 

performance. Assuming ARC does not have more funding to 

allocate to grants, ARC can help grantees improve their 

performance in several ways. For example, allowing more time 

for grantees to establish and engage the community with their 

projects may result in more long-term impacts. Also, identifying 

ways to better systematize and automate reporting 

requirements will help grantees spend more time focusing on 

grant implementation. Encouraging grantees to boost their 

capacity and more proactively integrate communications and 

awareness building related to the grant may help improve 

participation and thus have more widespread impacts. 

Community advisory groups may help achieve with this effort. 

Lastly, working with grantees to help increase organizational 

capacity with staffing may also prove fruitful. 

6.2.3 Project Impacts 

Moving from operations, management, and implementation of 

the grants, we also asked survey respondents to reflect on the 

kinds of impacts that the grant may have had on the 

community. These questions were designed to illicit information 

 

80 RTI Survey Q16 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-20 

on broader kinds of impacts that are not tracked as part of the 

output and outcome data required in ARC reporting. Thus, 

these survey findings complement ARC project data.

We asked survey respondents to indicate if their project has 

impacts along broad themes important to communities, 

including health and safety, public purposes, education and skill 

building, job and business climate, and communications 

infrastructure. Question 13 in the survey received 106 

responses, each of which reported an impact in at least one of 

the following categories. Note that respondents could choose 

more than one category so there is overlap. We also asked 

respondents about any improved coordination within the 

community as a result of the ARC grant. We explore the details 

of each of these topics below. 

Education and skill building was the most common category for 

impacts of projects: 66 percent of all respondents reported

improvements in this area. Figure 6-9 lists in detail the types 

of impacts that projects reported under each of the above 

categories. Some projects had impacts in multiple categories; 

therefore, totals do not sum up to 100 percent. 

Figure 6-9. Types of Impact of Projects (n=106)

Note: Because respondents had the option to choose more than one response, results total more than 100%.

Source: RTI Survey Q14
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-21 

Within each category, we then explored the types of impacts 

that communities experienced as a result of the grant. We 

discuss each of these in further detail by theme. 

Communications Infrastructure 

Thirty-nine survey respondents indicated that their projects had 

an impact on communication infrastructure. According to 

survey respondents, service delivery to an organization’s clients 

or customers was the most frequently cited communicationsrelated impact (Table 6-8). This was a common effect in 

projects we reviewed for the evaluation. ARC grants in this 

portfolio tended to improve local government and local business 

climate through broadband Internet infrastructure, allowing 

both businesses and governments in these communities to 

better communicate with and serve clients. 

Broad Impact

Count of 

Respondents 

Percentage

of Category 

Total

Better service delivery to your 

organization’s clients or customers

21 54

Better broadband Internet service 

for schools or other organizations

14 36

Better broadband Internet for 

other community organizations

13 33

Better broadband Internet for 

hospitals or other health care 

facilities

11 28

Better broadband Internet service 

for libraries

9 23

None of the above/not relevant 9 23

Better broadband Internet service 

for households in the Region

4 10

Note: Because respondents had the option to choose more than one response, 

results total more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q14 

Similarly, schools, educational institutions, and community 

institutions benefitted from better broadband Internet access. 

Understandably, households experienced the lowest level of 

benefit from ARC grants. Given households are more dispersed, 

especially in rural areas, they are the most difficult to extend 

infrastructure to. Instead, ARC grants tended to focus on 

Table 6-8. Types of 

Communications 

Impacts (n=39)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-22

organizations and institutions within the community that could 

reach more people. 

Jobs and Business Climate 

Modern business requires access to advanced 

telecommunications technology to access suppliers and 

markets, and local economic development depends on a good 

business climate that encourages business to locate and grow 

in a region. Survey results show that ARC grants had the most 

impact in creating a better business climate for 

entrepreneurship and for companies (see Table 6-9). Likely as 

an extension of building a stronger business climate for new 

and established businesses, ARC grantees cited that more jobs 

were created as a result of the improved telecommunications 

and technology infrastructure. 

Broad Impact

Count of 

Respondents

Percentage

of Category 

Total

Better climate for 

entrepreneurship

24 60

Better business climate for 

companies

22 55

More jobs for a town or region 17 43

Better broadband Internet service 

for business

12 30

More home-based businesses 6 15

Note: Because respondents had the option to choose more than one, results 

total more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q14 

Education and Skill Building 

Education and training projects were among the most common 

projects, accounting for 149 total grants, nearly half the ARC 

telecommunications and technology portfolio. Seventy survey 

respondents (66 percent of total) indicated their grant had 

impacts in this area. Accordingly, education and skill building 

was also the most frequently cited impact among survey 

respondents. Among those who identified it as an impact, they 

most frequently said that students or workers were better 

prepared for the workforce (see Table 6-10). Closely related, 

respondents indicated that grants improved computer and 

broadband Internet skills and improved the level of job skills in 

Table 6-9. Types of Jobs 

and Business Climate 

Impacts (n=40)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-23 

Broad Impact

Count of

Respondents

Percentage

of Category 

total

Students or workers better 

prepared for the workforce

45 64

Improved computer, broadband 

Internet and/or social media skills

42 60

Improved the level of job skills 

for people in a town or region

40 57

Improved the educational level of 

people in a town or region

34 49

Students better prepared for 

post-secondary education

33 47

None of the above/not relevant 5 7

Note: Because respondents had the option to choose more than one, results 

total more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q14 

the town or region. Almost all (64 out of 70) respondents 

indicating education and skill building as an impact said that 

the people in the community were either better educated or 

better prepared for higher education as a result of the project. 

Improvement in education and skills related to technology is 

essential for preparing workers for jobs in the twenty-first 

century, and ARC’s grantmaking has helped better prepare 

them for good jobs according to the survey. 

Public Purposes 

Of the total portfolio, 89 projects benefitted either community 

development or local government services, and 37 survey 

respondents indicated impacts on public services. The survey 

helps reveal how ARC funds helped improve public services. As 

shown in Table 6-11, the primary benefits experienced by 

communities were in improved planning to help facilitate 

growth and development and better communication between 

government and citizens. GIS mapping and access to online 

services were also indicated as impacts of ARC grants. These 

kinds of impacts are important because they can have a ripple 

effect in a local community. They improve civic engagement 

and streamline government services, making the area more 

business friendly and improve quality of life. 

Table 6-10. Education 

and Skill Building 

(n=70)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-24

Broad Impact

Count of 

Respondents

Percentage

of Category 

Total

Improved planning capacity of a 

town or region to help facilitate 

community or economic growth

17 46

Improved communication between 

local governments and their citizens

17 46

More online services provided by 

government, such as paying water 

bills or taxes, obtaining permits,

making reservations, etc.

10 27

Better GIS applications that yield 

improved information about local or 

regional infrastructure

9 24

None of the above/not relevant 9 24

Note: Because respondents had the option to choose more than one, results 

total more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q14 

Health and Safety 

Thirty-five respondents (33 percent) said that health and safety 

impacts resulted from ARC grants. The impacts of ARC grants 

for health projects fall into two categories (see Table 6-12). 

First, health grants improved health care for clients at health 

facilities through technologies like telemedicine, EMRs, and 

advanced imaging. Additionally, they improved public safety 

through services like E-911 and improved response systems 

with global positioning system (GPS) technology. These basic 

services are essential to community development. 

Broad Impact

Count of 

Respondents

Percentage

of Category 

total

Improved health care for clients 24 69

Improved public safety for 

residents

20 57

None of the above/not relevant 3 9

Note: Because respondents had the option to choose more than one, results 

total more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q14 

Table 6-11. Public 

Purposes (n=37)

Table 6-12. Health and

Safety (n=35)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-25 

Reviewing these broad impacts experienced by communities in 

more detail reveals how telecommunications and technology 

investments result in impacts that are integral to community 

economic development. Impacts range from improved public 

health and safety, public services, education, and skills 

development to improved business climates and job creation. 

This range of impacts also reflects the diversity in the ARC 

telecommunications and technology portfolio. It shows that 

diversity of investments did result in a diverse range of 

impacts, all integral however to the growth and development of 

Appalachian communities. 

Community Collaboration Impacts 

In addition to looking at the types of impacts on communities, 

we also inquired about the impacts that grants may have had 

on community collaboration. One of the indirect benefits of ARC 

projects is that they can help build new relationships and 

strengthen partnerships in communities. One of the survey 

questions revealed that despite the fact that only 35 percent of 

projects had a community advisory group, 80 percent of survey 

respondents reported that their grant helped facilitate new 

relationships somewhat or a lot. 

As we analyzed this question to decipher the kinds of broader 

impacts communities experienced, we found that 37 out of 87 

projects that noted community-related impacts (43 percent) 

indicated that participants were cooperating better with others 

to address community issues. Thirty-six percent of the 

respondents indicating they experienced community impacts 

said that participants feel more connected to the community. 

Thirty-three percent thought they were more likely to take on 

community leadership roles. Twenty-eight respondents out of 

the 87 indicated that they did not have other kinds of broader 

community impacts. Table 6-13 shows the number of projects 

that had these kinds of impacts on participants. 

In addition to the collaborative responses in the survey, 

respondents cited “other” impacts such as 

 better connections between employers and potential 

employees in skilled fields, 

 better awareness and understanding of technology in 

the community, 

Despite the fact that only 

35 percent of projects had 

a community advisory 

group, 80 percent of 

survey respondents 

reported that their grant 

helped facilitate new 

relationships somewhat 

or a lot.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-26

Broad Impact

Count of 

Respondents

Percentage

of Category 

Total

Participants in the project are 

better at cooperating with others 

in the community to address issues

37 43

Participants feel more connected to 

the community than they did 

before

31 36

Participants in the project are 

more likely to have a leadership 

role in addressing community 

issues

29 33

No broader impacts 28 32

Other 18 21

Note: Because respondents could select more than one impact, totals sum to 

more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q17 

 better outcomes for local entrepreneurs and small 

businesses, and 

 better connections and opportunities with local school 

districts and other surrounding organizations. 

The survey shows that the projects had broad spillover effects 

in the local community, increasing civic engagement and 

capacity, as well as affecting other organizations in the 

community and surrounding areas. 

Respondents provided an optimistic picture, when asked how 

much, if at all, the ARC-funded project helped facilitate new 

relationships in their region across organizations that might not 

otherwise have strong ties. In fact, 80 percent of respondents 

stated that the ARC project facilitated new relationships, while 

only 20 percent thought that the project did not facilitate new 

relationships very much or at all. In one community, access to 

needed new resources strengthened “the partnerships between 

the [named organization] and our participating school districts 

by demonstrating that the [named organization] was willing to 

seek funding to benefit students in their district. We also were 

able to expand the STEM programs that we offer to school 

districts.” The ties in this community’s education system were 

bolstered as a direct result of the ARC grant. 

Table 6-13. Broader 

Impacts on the 

Community (n=87)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-27 

Perceived Community Change 

In addition to understanding the role that ARC grants played in 

fostering community collaboration and relationships, RTI sought 

to understand how survey respondents perceived change in 

their community. We asked, “As you reflect on the project, has 

the town or region changed as a result? In other words, if this 

grant had not happened, would the town or region be different 

than it is today?” Of the 102 responses to this question, 87 

percent of the comments provided described positive changes, 

while other respondents offered mixed answers that reflect the 

complexity of socioeconomic issues in their community. 

Responses that relayed positive change for their community as 

a result of the ARC grant centered on three themes: 

 Increased capacity 

ARC’s investment within their community increased the 

capacity of local institutions to deliver better services, 

meeting a broad array of ongoing, local needs. This 

improvement was found across educational institutions, 

public entities, health care facilities, nonprofit 

organizations, and private businesses. 

 Bolstered economic viability 

The support received through ARC bolstered the 

economic viability of the area by targeting fundamental 

roadblocks to workforce development and business 

recruitment, among other important growth 

opportunities. 

 Catalyst for longer-term transformation 

ARC’s funding is considered by many respondents as a 

catalyst for longer-term transformation. Targeted 

projects are often described as the first steps that 

underpin larger, enduring efforts that have shifted the 

way communities have progressed. 

The benefits experienced as a result of these projects led the 

majority of survey respondents to highlight the communitywide spillover effects of the financial resources. For example, 

the betterment of a local hospital’s technological infrastructure 

not only contributed to vast health care provision 

improvements, but also stabilized the hospital as the area’s 

largest employer. Grant recipients spoke to the tangible assets 

gained through ARC’s presence and often highlighted the more 

intangible impact of their community’s increased connectivity. 

We explore each theme briefly. 

Survey Question 7:

In your own words, as 

you reflect on the project, 

has the town or region 

changed as a result? In 

other words, if this grant 

had not happened, would 

the town or region be 

different than it is today? 

Please explain.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-28

Increased Capacity of Local Institutions 

The diverse capacity-building needs within ARC-funded 

communities cut across entities providing public services, those 

charged with human capital development (in schools and jobs), 

and organizations specifically focused on residents’ health and 

safety. Respondents said that investments in technology 

improvements immediately added to the grant recipients’

abilities to not only access more information, but also to take 

direct action based on the new knowledge to the greater benefit 

of their community members. For example, one grantee 

explained how municipalities can now better evaluate, plan, and 

manage the road infrastructure assets currently in place. A 

regional hospital affirmed how “thousands of patients are now 

receiving better healthcare as their records are integrated, and 

thus safer and more easily accessible.” ARC’s support has 

provided these professionals with technical adeptness that 

respondents say has had an immediate impact on the local 

communities’ well-being. 

Alongside current capacity building, a number of survey 

respondents highlighted how these enhanced abilities have 

shaped their future outlook about their community. For 

instance, a school system made a firm connection between the 

ARC-provided technological advancements and their students’

preparation for future job opportunities. Similar sentiments are 

found for the workforce. Specifically, for one community “the 

electric utility sector would [otherwise] be without trained 

linemen to replace the retiring workforce.” Respondents said 

that their ability to understand not only the current state of 

their community, but also how community needs may change is 

critical to their communities’ stability. 

Bolstered Economic Viability 

Twenty percent of survey respondents identified their ARC 

project as a key piece of necessary support to local businesses 

in need. From relatively small feats such as online payment 

options to larger-scale economic development and job creation 

efforts, the investments were highlighted as critical to the 

private sector’s viability. The following direct quotes underscore 

how important these grants were perceived to be for the local 

business community: 

“At the time of the grant award, broadband Internet service in 

this community was extremely limited, if not entirely 

Respondents said that 

investments in technology 

improvements 

immediately added to the 

grant recipients’ abilities 

to not only access more 

information, but also to 

take direct action based 

on the new knowledge to 

the greater benefit of 

their community 

members.

From relatively small 

feats such as online 

payment options to 

larger-scale economic 

development and job 

creation efforts, the 

investments were 

highlighted as critical to 

the private sector’s 

viability.
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-29 

unavailable. ... The ARC grant ‘bridged a critical gap’ in our 

community’s history, and today the community is economically 

stronger as a result of the ARC investment.”

“Our region has changed for the better with a greater 

appreciation of entrepreneurship and the support for small 

business development. If the funding had not occurred there 

would be potentially 400 less jobs and $30 million less in capital 

investment in this region.”

“The region has changed in that an employer now has a pool of 

trained qualified candidates to fill skilled positions at their 

business. Any time a business can grow that is good for the 

community. Similarly, the training provided employment 

opportunities for the target population that did not exist prior to 

the grant.”

Another respondent noted the ability of their rural community 

to now attract high-tech businesses and entrepreneurs, which 

enabled better health services and educational opportunities. 

Bustling businesses have meant widespread community 

benefits, in some cases according to respondents. 

Catalyst to Longer-Term Transformation 

About 15 percent of the comments describe ARC projects as the 

foundational step that catalyzed critical future action within 

their area. One respondent noted candidly, “without this 

assistance, many would have simply not used technology.”

ARC’s funding, in some cases, spurred a culture of collaboration 

that has remained active after the grant ended. Specifically, 

one grantee elaborated, “A number of key stakeholders became 

aware of the need for constantly striving for better and more 

widely available broadband service across the county. Several 

of these stakeholders worked together to determine how they 

can work with providers to improve service. Participation by 

members of key stakeholder groups established a network in 

the county that comes together to address other community 

issues.”

One respondent noted 

candidly, “without this 

assistance, many would 

have simply not used 

technology.”
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-30

In some examples, ARC’s project is used as a model for others 

within the community. One respondent described how “[t]his 

project was an early example of Internet adoption for business 

purposes. Other [adoptions] have happened since, we think 

because of ground broken in this project.” Beyond ARC’s 

funding as the prime community example, these projects 

spurred future activity. For one community, “the grant led to an 

aggregation project that improved telecommunications access 

for key health care providers along with ancillary benefits that 

accrued to under-served areas.” In another area, the barriers 

to future technology-related investments were significantly 

lower: “we were able to provide a better wireless Internet 

service, however since that time, we placed fiber in the area 

and have since provided more to those schools beyond this 

service.”

In other instances, respondents expressed mixed feedback 

about how their communities have fared as a result of the ARC 

grant, revealing both positive and negative community 

circumstances. The comments recognize the significant 

contextual influence of entrenched socioeconomic challenges 

over the accomplishments of ARC grants. One respondent 

underscored this mixed sentiment well: “Without what the 

grant provided to connect us to a reliable, low latency, 

broadband network we would [have] had to make significant 

system changes that would result in more local taxpayer money 

that we don’t have or can’t foreseeably raise to meet the needs 

of a continually connected culture. We still have needs, many 

populated areas are still without and without service being 

brought to them; the likelihood of a service provider making 

steps that way are very slim.” In a similarly difficult position, 

another respondent illustrates how new educational 

opportunities are, unfortunately, resulting in local brain drain: 

“There is no doubt the ARC grant made a difference in the 

community. By providing students the opportunity to use 

distance learning while earning a degree from a two year 

program. Unfortunately, the job base is not available for those 

utilizing the technology to stay [...] most students must leave 

the region in order to find good paying jobs.” This tension 

represents an important reality check: ARC grants are not 

operating in isolation to broader scale dynamics that affect the 

expected outcomes of these targeted resources. 

One respondent described 

how “[t]his project was 

an early example of 

Internet adoption for 

business purposes. Other 

[adoptions] have 

happened since, we think 

because of ground broken 

in this project.”

For one community, “the 

grant led to an 

aggregation project that 

improved 

telecommunications 

access for key health care 

providers along with 

ancillary benefits that 

accrued to under-served 

areas.”
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-31 

Finally, 12 respondents offered a neutral perspective regarding 

changes in their community as a result of ARC’s involvement. 

The broader poverty challenges seemed untouched as a result 

of this project for these respondents. In particular, one grantee 

lives in a region that “still has one of the poorest health 

statuses in the nation. The economy, education and health care 

systems are sparse and not sufficient, yet the population does 

not generate enough tax base to make significant change.”

These kinds of comments touch on the difficult and persistent 

issues in many Appalachian communities such as poverty, lack 

of quality access to health care and education, and low 

availability of job opportunities. 

6.2.4 Sustainability and Reported Impacts of Projects after the 

ARC Grant 

We now present information about the sustainability of the 

project after ARC’s funding expired. We also report on noted 

impacts from survey respondents since ARC project closeout. 

Seventy-seven percent of respondents (79 projects) intended 

to continue the project work after the grant period. Of those, 

57 projects (55 percent of respondents) had follow-on funding 

to support project-related activities. Together, they raised 

approximately $7.9 million in follow-on funding at the end of 

the ARC grant period. Forty-six projects specified where they 

received funds. Table 6-14 outlines the variety of other 

sources of funding. 

Funding Source

Count of 

Respondents

Amount of 

Funding, $

Some other source of 

federal funds

14 2,950,000

Private sector 12 1,650,000

State government 20 1,143,000

Other 14 1,062,000

Nonprofit or foundation 9 687,000

County government 15 402,000

Source: RTI Survey Q21 

The most frequent source of funds was state government (20 

projects), but the largest amount of funding came from other 

federal agencies ($2.95 million). Respondents cited other 

sources including 

“Without what the grant 

provided to connect us to 

a reliable, low latency, 

broadband network we 

would had to make 

significant system 

changes that would result 

in more local tax payer 

money that we don’t have 

or can’t foreseeably raise 

to meet the needs of a

continually connected 

culture.”

This tension represents 

an important reality 

check: ARC grants are 

not operating in isolation 

to broader scale 

dynamics that affect the 

expected outcomes of 

these targeted resources.

Table 6-14. Funding 

Sources after ARC Funds 

(n=46)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-32

 internal revenue from operations, including health 

systems and tuition payments; 

 local governments; and 

 E-rate funding for schools. 

Some projects, particularly grants to draft strategic plans, 

continued to have effects in the community after the grant 

funding period but did not require additional direct funding. 

Impacts since Project Closeout 

Survey respondents were more likely to have collected data 

since project close than to have done a project evaluation. 

While 48 percent of grantees documented impacts since project 

close, only 37 percent conducted an end-of-project evaluation. 

For the 52 projects that document measures of impacts since 

the project closed, RTI aggregated their impacts in 

Table 6-15. 

Impact Type

Sum of 

Impacts

Count of 

Respondents 

Businesses created 124 5

Businesses served 2,116 12

Households improved 287 8

Jobs created 2,883 8

Jobs retained 415 6

Funding leveraged $72,754,002 5

Linear feet of broadband Internet

established

113,040 2

Participants improved 4,659 7

Participants served 4,719 9

Patients improved 1 1

Patients served 212,345 4

Plans or reports created 17 6

Programs implemented 105 14

Students improved 19,070 12

Students served 49,646 25

Telecommunications sites 

established

2 2

Workers/trainees improved 1,412 9

Workers/trainees served 3,067 12

Note: Paired output/outcome measures are shaded in gray. 

Source: RTI Survey Q13 

Table 6-15. Documented 

Impacts since Project 

Closed (n=52)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-33 

These numbers demonstrate impacts occurring after the 

original ARC funds were spent and the grant period closed. 

Some projects had multiple documented impacts. Although the 

methods used to document the impacts after project close likely 

varied widely, these results illustrate that ARC projects have a 

long-term impact on communities that is not limited to the 

grant period. 

Some of the stated impacts after project close, such as 

businesses created (124), are higher than the original at-close 

performance measures (101 businesses created—outcome). 

This example offers insight into the long-term impacts of 

projects after the close of the grant. There are more examples 

of projects that had significant increases in performance 

numbers after the close of the grant. 

Highlights include the following: 

 The Burson Center for Business Development raised $69 

million in capital investment, created 789 jobs, and 

served over 1,400 businesses in Georgia. 

 Coosa County GPS Water System Mapping leveraged 

$400,000 in private investment and installed 18,000 

linear feet of new fiber in Alabama. 

 The Tri-County Telecommunications Master Planning 

initiative stated, “As a result of this initiative, as well as 

the resulting implementation initiative, health care 

providers, schools, and small business/entrepreneurs 

have access to quicker, more reliable, and significantly 

less expensive Internet access. This has produced a 

benefit for health care, education, and economic 

development.” It has served 200 businesses and over 

10,000 students in South Carolina since the close of the 

grant period. 

 The Ashtabula County Medical Center EMR system has 

served 5,000 patients in Ohio since the close of the 

grant. The grant manager said, “The implementation of 

electronic medical record[s] at Ashtabula County Medical 

Center was the smoothest launch seen in the Cleveland 

Clinic system.” Additionally, the grant allowed the clinic 

to use its funds to invest in other critical health 

technologies. 

 The Northwest NC Advanced Materials Cluster has 

served 500 students and 175 workers/trainees at Wilkes 

Community College. Additionally, it has contributed to 

local business and job growth in western North Carolina. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-34

These totals in Table 6-15 are limited only to the subset of 52 

projects that documented impacts after the grant period. The 

true impacts of the portfolio are likely larger. 

The after-close impacts as indicated by the survey illustrate the 

fact that many of ARC’s investments in telecommunications and 

technology were only beginning to have effects at the close of 

the grant period. Projects with goals that were hard to attain in 

the short term, such as job creation or student improvement, 

showed significant impacts in the long term that were not 

captured in the original project data. Additionally, adoption of 

telecommunications technology is a slow process and requires 

community education, involvement, and buy-in, which occurs 

over a longer time period than the initial grant. 

6.2.5 Economic and Social Conditions in Communities 

The RTI team sought to gain a more expansive understanding 

of the conditions in communities at the time of the ARC grant 

and at the time of the survey. Survey respondents were asked 

to compare the economic conditions and quality of life at the 

time the grant was awarded with conditions today. We do not 

make a correlation with the ARC grant and a change in these 

more holistic community conditions. However, we do think this 

evaluation can help gauge, generally, if conditions in 

Appalachian communities are improving. 

Survey respondents were asked first about the state of the 

community’s economic conditions at the time the grant was 

awarded. Additionally, they were asked how those economic 

conditions compare with the economic conditions today. Those 

findings are displayed in Figure 6-10. 

At the time the grant was awarded, 41 percent of communities 

had self-described poor economic conditions and 47 percent 

had fair economic conditions. Many of the grants were made 

during the 2008 economic recession, making it more likely that 

communities would describe a difficult economic climate. Only 

11 percent of communities had good or excellent economic 

conditions. Today, the conditions of these communities have 

improved quite substantially: 35 percent of respondents 

described their economic conditions as good or excellent. The 

percentage of communities with poor conditions was cut in half. 
Section 6 — Survey Analysis

6-35 

Figure 6-10. Economic Conditions in the Town or Region that the Grant Targeted (n=117)

Source: RTI Survey Q1, Q2

The overall breakdown of economic conditions shows broad 

improvement for communities during this time frame. Looking 

at the individual project level supports this broad improvement:

 Fifty percent of projects reported an improvement in 

economic conditions between the grant award and the 

present. 

 Forty-three percent of projects reported no change. 

 Seven percent reported worsening of economic 

conditions in the community.81

The Sankey chart in Figure 6-11 highlights specifically how 

communities’ reported economic conditions changed over time. 

The left-hand bar shows communities’ economic conditions at 

the time of the grant, the Sankey diagram shows if 

 

81 One hundred fifteen respondents provided both the economic 

conditions at the time the project was awarded and the economic 

conditions today.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-36

Source: RTI Survey Q1, Q2 

communities changed conditions, and the right-hand bar shows 

communities’ economic conditions today. For the communities 

with “poor” economic conditions at the start of the grant (see 

the blue left-hand bar and corresponding flows), most have 

experienced improved conditions today as seen by the flows 

from poor to fair or poor to good. The figure illustrates that 

communities’ economic conditions are quite dynamic over time. 

As mentioned above, 50 percent of communities reported 

improved economic conditions from the time of the grant award 

to today. The groups of projects with improved conditions are 

labeled in the Sankey chart in the figure. 

To capture additional measures of well-being in communities, 

the RTI team asked about the current degree of satisfaction of 

residents along several dimensions—mobility, jobs, safety, and 

institutions/infrastructure—on a scale from 1 to 5. Figure 6-12

shows the average responses for each of the four dimensions. 

Safety is the highest rated aspect of everyday life (3.8), while 

good-paying jobs is almost a point lower at 2.9. Ability to move 

and the quality of infrastructure and institutions such as libraries, 

hospitals, and transportation amenities both ranked in the middle 

with 3.2 and 3.1, respectively. These findings indicate that access 

to good jobs remains most challenging for community members 

as they seek to improve their quality of life. 

Figure 6-11. Sankey 

Chart Showing the 

Change in Economic 

Conditions for Survey 

Respondents (n=117)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis

6-37 

Figure 6-12. Average Satisfaction of Residents with Different Aspects of Everyday Life

Note: Scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being extremely unsatisfied and 5 being extremely satisfied.

Source: RTI Survey Q3

6.2.6 Future Needs and Challenges in the Community as They 

Relate to Broadband Internet and Computers, and 

Technology 

The survey concluded with a series of questions about future

needs and challenges in the community as they relate to 

broadband Internet, computers, and technology. The questions 

asked about needs in terms of infrastructure, increasing 

adoption of the Internet, and improving education. We explore 

the results within each topic area below. The findings from 

these questions may be useful to ARC as it considers priorities 

for future funding in a telecommunications and technology 

portfolio.

In terms of telecommunications and technology infrastructure, 

the most cited need is to support faster broadband Internet

(71), which is closely followed by the need for a 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-38

telecommunications infrastructure to better reach underserved 

households (69). These are both large barriers to entry in rural 

areas because of the cost of installation and low potential 

return on investment. 

Sixty-two respondents said that replacing outdated computers 

or technologies was the third most important unmet need (see 

Table 6-16).

Need

Count of 

Respondents

Percentage of 

Category Total

Infrastructure investment to 

support faster broadband 

Internet speeds and service

71 70

Infrastructure investments to 

reach households currently 

unserved by broadband 

Internet networks

69 68

Replacing out-of-date 

computers or technologies in 

schools, hospitals, libraries, 

and local government.

62 61

Investing in retrofitting 

facilities, such as internal 

wiring, so they can better 

support wireless broadband 

Internet access

46 45

More technical support 

personnel in the community 

or organization to maintain 

equipment

30 29

Other 1 1

Don’t know 3 3

Note: Because respondents could select more than one impact, totals sum to 

more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q24 

Examining adoption needs reveals a different set of challenges 

for the Appalachian Region. Table 6-17 lists the most 

commonly cited challenges for adoption. Lower costs for 

consumers is the top need for increasing adoption of broadband 

Internet telecommunications (69 percent of respondents) and 

with digital literacy is second (56 percent of respondents). 

These results differ from those reported by the Pew Research 

Center in 2013, which showed that relevance and literacy 

issues were the largest deterring factors for Internet nonusers 

Table 6-16. Needs 

Related to Telecommunications and 

Technology 

Infrastructure (n=102)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-39 

Need

Count of 

Respondents

Percentage of 

Category Total

Lower monthly broadband 

Internet fees for consumers

69 69

Improving digital literacy for 

citizens

56 56

More competition among 

broadband Internet providers 

53 53

Other 3 3

Don’t know 8 8

Note: Because respondents could select more than one impact, totals sum to 

more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q 25 

and high costs were less of an obstacle.82 However, lower 

median household incomes in the Appalachian Region mean 

that costs of Internet service are a larger obstacle than in other 

parts of the country. Organizations and users in the Region 

understand the value of Internet access, but the cost is a 

significant burden to adoption. One grantee, in particular, noted 

how necessary the resources to cover the “last-mile 

infrastructure” are to reach some of the most underserved 

populations in their area. 

Education and training needs as identified by survey 

respondents are shown in Table 6-18. The two most cited 

needs are more training for teachers (57 percent) and for 

people in community assets like libraries and health care 

facilities (54 percent). Teachers, health care providers, and 

library workers have secondary effects by improving education 

and knowledge among students and residents, which, in turn, 

leads to better educational outcomes. Opportunities to better 

understand privacy, intellectual property, and other data 

management issues are high priorities for the survey 

respondents as well (48 percent). A respondent from the health 

care field illustrated their experience: “In health care, the 

concerns over privacy and archiving are big issues that we are 

struggling with. The resources to help with this have eluded 

us.”

 

82 Zickhur, Katherine. September 15, 2013. “Who’s Not Online and 

Why.” Pew Research Center. Accessed at 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-not-online-andwhy/ on August 15, 2015. 

Table 6-17. Needs 

Related to Adoption of 

Broadband Internet

Telecommunications 

(n=100)
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

6-40

Need

Count of 

Respondents

Percentage of 

Category Total

More training for teachers so 

they can better use 

computers and broadband 

Internet in the classroom to 

improve educational 

outcomes

55 57

More training for people 

working in libraries, health 

care facilities, or other 

community organizations to 

help them better use 

computers and broadband 

Internet to carry out their 

missions

54 56

More education on the issues 

of privacy, intellectual 

property, and archiving 

information

47 48

Other 6 6

Don’t know 20 21

Note: Because respondents could select more than one impact, totals sum to 

more than 100%. 

Source: RTI Survey Q26 

These results can help inform future investments by agencies 

like ARC that continue to work in telecommunications and 

technology in a rural setting. Basic infrastructure and 

equipment, lower broadband Internet fees, and better training 

for teachers and citizens will lead to increasing returns on 

investment for telecommunications and technology by 

overcoming some of the obstacles mentioned above. 

6.3 SUMMARY FINDINGS 

The survey results offered a deeper perspective on the 

challenges organizations faced in managing and implementing 

projects. Insights from the survey uncover a layer of 

understanding about the barriers to telecommunications and 

technology deployment and adoption in rural areas, including 

challenges with traditional telecommunications providers, 

creation of citizen awareness, and ability to anticipate levels of 

demand for technologies that people are not familiar with. 

These challenges continue to exist, and with the fast-moving 

Table 6-18. Needs 

Related to Education for 

Broadband Internet 

(n=97)
Section 6 — Survey Analysis 

6-41 

telecommunications landscape, they will evolve into new 

challenges in the future. 

At the same time, they shed light on the widespread and longterm impacts that go beyond the limited ARC grant period. 

Organizations have been able to overcome challenges that may 

have made a project look less successful in an early stage, and 

ARC’s investments have had long-lasting effects after the grant 

period. Seventy-seven percent of the grantees surveyed 

intended to continue their projects after the end of the grant 

period, and 55 percent were able to secure follow-on funding to 

do so. Further, close to half of the projects had documented 

quantitative impacts since the close of the project, across all of 

the metrics used by ARC in evaluation. They raised millions of 

dollars in private investment and added thousands of jobs to 

their local economies. Their reported metrics are large and 

indicate a significant, measurable lasting effect of ARC’s 

grantmaking efforts in telecommunications and technology. 

The survey results also provide an important complement to 

the project database measures: they offer an indication of 

some of the intangible benefits and the long-term ripple effects 

that may not have been captured in the project closeout 

numbers. Survey respondents who indicated the strongest 

positive economic change in their communities did not 

necessarily have the highest average project performance 

numbers, and overall improvement in the regional economy 

was not necessarily associated with projects meeting their 

stated performance outputs and outcomes. 

Furthermore, the projects have had a secondary effect on 

community building. Half of the respondents indicated a 

positive economic change in their communities, and 80 percent 

indicated that they were able to better facilitate new 

relationships. Better education and skill building, job 

preparedness, local leadership, and coordination among local 

businesses and organizations are just a few of the widespread 

ripple effects that this portfolio of investments has had on 

Appalachian communities. 

7-1 

Case Studies 

ARC’s telecommunications and technology investments occur at 

the nexus of complicated, multidimensional contexts that 

cannot be comprehended solely through ARC’s internal grants 

management reports or survey data. Exploratory, field-based 

case studies of select projects bring into sharper focus the mix 

of programmatic, environmental, technological, and social

human factors that ensure the benefits of technology-enabled 

development in Appalachia.

Between FY 2004 and FY 2010, ARC invested $41 million in 322 

diverse technology-focused projects throughout its 13-member 

states. Although each project is unique to its time and 

particular context, the broader challenges and opportunities 

they address are common to many of the rural, low-density, 

and economically distressed counties in Appalachia and beyond. 

The RTI team conducted comparative case studies of a select 

sample of ARC’s technology project portfolio in early summer 

2015 to the following ends: 

 Provide empirical documentation of reported outcomes. 

 Develop a deep and fuller understanding of unique and 

cross-cutting factors affecting/facilitating project

success. 

 Build on that understanding by triangulating case study 

findings with primary data collected through the survey 

and archival analysis of ARC grants management system 

and project records to generate robust 

recommendations for enhancing the positive outcomes 

of projects funded by ARC.

 Emphasize rural, underserved and/or economically

stressed communities. 

Section 7.1 describes the process employed in selecting cases 

for in-depth study, the design and protocol followed for the site 

visits, and the common set of core questions used to facilitate 

Although each project is 

unique to its time and 

particular context, the 

broader challenges and 

opportunities they 

address are common to 

many of the rural, lowdensity, and economically 

distressed counties in 

Appalachia and beyond. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-2 

comparison of themes and findings across the projects studied. 

Section 7.2 provides detailed write-ups for each project visited 

during the case studies. Summary findings comprising crosscutting themes and lessons learned complete this chapter 

(Section 7.3).

7.1 METHODS 

In this section, we describe the criteria for case study selection 

and summarize the cases selected. 

7.1.1 Case Selection 

The entire FY 2004 through FY 2010 technology project 

portfolio was considered in selecting cases for in-depth analysis 

and site visits. Forty projects passed initial screening criteria 

that included the following traits: 

 Projects benefited distressed communities. 

 Projects had potential to serve as a model for similar 

efforts. 

 Projects used a novel approach. 

 Projects were of a scale and duration that support 

lasting and meaningful impact. 

The 40 candidate projects were arrayed across a matrix of 

project functions and beneficiaries to ensure the selection of a 

final sample that was broadly representative of the full 

spectrum of ARC technology projects. We also selected cases 

that represented: all 13 ARC member states; a range in funding 

amounts and time horizons; and level of rurality. ARC staff 

provided additional information that helped narrow the 

candidate pool. Some projects were eliminated when efforts to 

contact the grantee organization or to identify individuals with 

sufficient project knowledge proved unsuccessful. 

This rigorous screening process identified 18 projects83 for

analysis. The case study locations are shown in Figure 7-1. 

 

83 Two projects were managed by the same grantee, West Alabama 

Regional Commission. These two are joined in the first case study 

and defined as Phase 1 and Phase 2 occurring in 2005 and 2008, 

respectively (AL-15117 and AL-16021). 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-3 

Figure 7-1. Map of Case Study Locations 

Source: RTI and Appalachian Regional Commission 

Fifteen of the projects were selected as potential exemplars of 

success; three now-defunct projects represent projects that 

might offer a diagnostic of factors that contribute to less 

imitable outcomes. Table 7-1 summarizes the project titles, 

the beneficiary focus, the technology function focus, the project 

year, and funding amounts. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-4 

Table 7-1. ARC Project Case Study Characteristics 

State—

Project # Project Title

Beneficiary 

Focusa

Technology 

Function Focusa

Project 

Year

ARC 

Funds/ 

Additional 

Funds

Alabama—

15117-1

b

GIS for West AL 

Water Systems

Community 

development

Nonbroadband 

technology 

2005 $150,000/

$40,000

Alabama—

16021b

GIS for West AL 

Water Systems II

Community 

development

Nonbroadband 

technology 

2008 $100,000/

$100,000

Alabama—

15246c

Marion County 

Schools 

Telecommunications

Education Direct broadband 2005 $360,000/

$90,000

Alabama—

16551

Whatley Health 

services 

Medical/Dental 

Equipment

Health Application of 

broadband

2010 $165,678/

$41,419

Georgia—

14430

Fannin County 

Workforce 

Development

Training Broadband support 

and adoption

2005 $263,000/

$327,200

Kentucky—

15584

Regional High 

Growth Training 

Center

Training Direct broadband 2007 $500,000/

$229,000

Maryland—

16489

Allegany County 

Public School Smart 

Board

Education Broadband support 

and adoption

2009 $20,000/

$20,000

Mississippi—

15079

Three Rivers 

Electronic Filing 

System

Local 

government

Broadband support 

and application

2005 $200,000/

$844,504

New York—

15778

Schuyler—

Chemung—Tioga 

BOCES Educational 

Opportunities 

Network

Education Direct broadband 2007 $199,732/

$235,422

North 

Carolina—

15787

Rutherford County 

Broadband 

Expansion

Local 

government

Direct broadband 

and broadband 

support

2007 $178,920/

$76,680

Ohio—16785 Youngstown Ohio 

Works & Riverbend 

Industrial Park 

Broadband Access

Business 

development

Direct broadband 2010 $91,318/$

91,318

(continued) 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-5 

Table 7-1. ARC Project Case Study Characteristics (continued) 

State—

Project # Project Title

Beneficiary 

Focusa

Technology 

Function Focusa

Project 

Year

ARC 

Funds/ 

Additional 

Funds

Pennsylvania—

14772

SEDA-COG 

Promoting 

Technology 

Adoption for 

Progress (PTAP)

Local 

government

Broadband 

adoption

2004 $150,000/

$162,500

Pennsylvania—

15955

Cambria Connected Community 

development

Direct broadband 2008 $225,000/

$267,180

South 

Carolina—

15688

Tri-County 

Telecommunications 

Master Planning 

Initiative

Community 

development

Broadband 

adoption

2007 $65,000/

$66,000

South 

Carolina—

15687

Tri-County 

Technology College 

Technology 

Infrastructure 

Pendleton Campus

Training Broadband support 2007 $101,401/

$191,503

Tennessee—

16340

Regional Economic 

Development GIS 

Upgrade

Local 

government

Broadband support 

and application

2009 $11,055/

$11,055

Virginia—

16032

Dickenson Center 

for Education and 

Research 

Equipment

Training Broadband support 2008 $100,000/ 

$25,162

West Virginia—

16063

West Virginia State 

Museum Education

Education Broadband 

adoption and 

application

2008 $200,000/

$235,000

a Definition pulled from the broadband evaluation framework developed by RTI in partnership with ARC.

b

 These projects were managed by the same grantee, West Alabama Regional Commission, and have been 

combined into a single case study. They are discussed as Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the case in Section 7.3.1. 

c

 The original project is not in operation; however, the network is operating as Cambria Connect and is delivering 

services to county government with plans to transition to fiber. 

Source: ARC Telecommunications and Technology Database FY 2004–FY 2010 

7.1.2 Site Visits 

We invited individuals identified as potential key informants for 

selected projects to participate in interviews for the purpose of 

documenting the process and outcomes of specific case study 

projects. We scheduled visits in May, June, and July 2015 at 

dates and times convenient to the interviewees in all cases 

except two. The RTI team conducted one project interview over 

the telephone (AL-14256), and one was conducted in a virtual 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-6 

meeting format (WV-16063). Objectives for the 

visits/interviews included the following: 

 demonstration of project or tangible evidence of its 

implementation 

 interviews with the project leaders and stakeholders to 

illicit information about challenges encountered, 

successes experienced, and long-term impacts on 

Appalachian communities. 

 collection of archival or ancillary materials. 

7.1.3 Internal and External Validity 

We applied a consistent research design and interview process 

using a common set of structured and open-ended questions 

(see Appendix E) to provide internal validity and allow for 

elucidation of cross-cutting themes common to the projects. We 

addressed external validity by selecting projects that 

adequately represent the spectrum of ARC telecommunications 

and technology projects undertaken from FY 2004 through FY 

2010 (see Table 7-1). We carefully assessed the stratification 

of projects at both ends of the success continuum and with 

regard to technology function, geography, scope, span, and 

cost to increase the external validity and robustness of findings. 

Deployment of the same two-person team to all sites ensured 

the consistency of interpretation that is critical to comparative 

analysis. 

We used evidence from other studies to frame the questions for 

interviewees to help us build on the latest understanding of the 

contribution of certain factors and situations toward the success 

of technology-based economic and community development 

projects. Triangulation of findings across field research, primary 

data collected through surveys, and analysis of archival 

information from ARC grants management system/project 

records and from other public sources increased the robustness 

and reliability of cross-cutting themes and factors that emerged 

as highly relevant to project outcomes. 

Consistent types and sources of data contribute to the 

interpretation and generalizability of findings. All demographic 

and economic data cited in tables found in the individual case 

studies were sourced from the most recent information 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-7 

available from the U.S. Census84 or, in the case of 

unemployment data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.85

Sources for local information used in community profiles are 

cited in individual case studies. Economic status descriptors, 

including “Distressed,” “At Risk,” “Transitional,” “Competitive,” 

or “Attainment,” are defined and applied to counties by ARC.86

7.1.4 Site Visit Follow-Up

We provided primary contacts at each project drafts of their 

particular case study and asked them to verify that the final 

case study reports accurately capture information exchanged in 

the interviews. We thank all individuals who graciously shared 

their experiences, perspectives, insights, and recommendations 

related to using telecommunications and technology to improve 

the prospects of Appalachian communities. 

7.2 CASES 

7.2.1 GIS for West Alabama Water Systems Phase I and 

Systems Phase II 

Community Profile 

The West Alabama Regional Commission (WARC) comprises 

Bibb, Fayette, Greene, Hale, Lamar, Pickens, and Tuscaloosa 

Counties. WARC is a legislatively established organization 

created to coordinate region-wide projects in these seven 

counties. Each county except Greene and Tuscaloosa engaged 

in ARC’s investments with the region. The population of the 

region is approximately 300,000, two-thirds of whom reside in 

Tuscaloosa County. As a growing, largely urban (74 percent) 

county with an economy dominated by manufacturing and 

service jobs, Tuscaloosa stands apart in the greater region that 

 

84 U.S. Census Bureau. No date. Quick Facts Beta 2.0. Accessed at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html on August 1, 2015. 

Note that the percentage of the population over 65 years is as of 

July 1, 2014; data related to high school graduation, per capita 

income, and poverty are numbers are based on the most recent 

year available. 

85 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. No date. Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics Map. Accessed at 

http://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet?survey=la&map=state&se

asonal=s on August 1, 2015. 

86 Appalachian Regional Commission. 2015. “Distressed Designation 

and County Economic Status Classification System, FY 2007 – FY 

2016.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/research/SourceandMethodologyCountyEconom

icStatusFY2007FY2016.asp on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-8 

is 79 percent rural, characterized by declining population, and 

is a natural resource–based economy.87

The other WARC counties underperform compared with state 

and national averages on various factors affecting economic 

vitality, including lower educational attainment, lower per 

capita income, and higher levels of poverty (see Table 7-2). 

Table 7-2. WARC Counties’ Demographic and Economic Profile

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth(2010

–2014)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment (June 2014)Poverty

Bibb County −1.8 14.3 77.5 17,427 7.1 18.1

Fayette County −2.1 19.0 74.9 18,494 7.6 19.9

Hale County −3.7 16.9 77.4 18,812 8.9 25.6

Lamar County −3.3 19.9 6.1 19,026 7.1 18.6

Pickens County 3.1 18.1 79.7 17,153 8.4 27.2

Tuscaloosa County 3.9 11.4 86.6 22,637 6.8 18.9

Alabama 1.4 14.9 83.1 23,680 7.4 18.6

United States 3.3 13.0 86.0 28,155 6.1 21.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Natural resource–based occupations in agriculture and forestry 

remain mainstays in the more rural counties, while 

manufacturing trades and services dominate in Tuscaloosa, 

where Mercedes and Airbus form the nexus of a growing 

 

87 West Alabama Regional Commission. 2012. “The West Alabama 

Economic Development District Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategy.” Accessed at 

https://www./warc.info/component/rsfiles/download?path=Planning

%20Documents/CEDS2012%20Final%203web.pdf on August 1, 

2015.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-9 

cluster.88 Within the rural WARC counties, progress has been 

uneven, as seen in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3. Changes in WARC Counties and ARC Economic Status 

FY Year Bibb Fayette Hale Lamar Pickens Tuscaloosa

2005 Distressed Transitional Distressed Transitional Distressed Transitional

2010 At risk Transitional Distressed Transitional At risk Transitional

2016 At risk Transitional Distressed At risk At risk Transitional

Source: ARC Data Reports 

Project Synopsis 

WARC developed regional capacity for more efficient water 

system operations particularly through ARC’s grant support for 

equipment, software, and personnel in 2005 and 2008. In 2005 

WARC partnered with three of its most economically distressed 

counties—Bibb, Hale, and Pickens—to create highly accurate 

inventories and maps of rural water features in 15 separate 

water systems (Phase 1). Phase 1 totaled $150,000 in ARC 

funding alongside a local match of $40,000. A second phase of 

funding, in 2008, folded in Fayette and Lamar Counties. Phase 

2 brought together local and ARC resources totaling $200,000. 

All water system–related infrastructure and features were 

mapped with Trimble GeoXT handheld GPS units, validated on 

the ground, and uploaded into computers equipped with ArcGIS 

software. WARC then created highly detailed paper maps and 

populated a regional database with digital shapefiles specific to 

each separate water system. 

Greene County joined these efforts in 2012 with funding from 

the Delta Regional Authority. Separately, the water authorities 

serving Tuscaloosa County and its municipalities elected to map 

their system independently of WARC. 

Site Visit Findings 

Accurate and comprehensive information on underground 

utilities underwrites more efficient and cost-effective 

operations, disaster recovery, and community development. 

Region-based planning and development often involves multiple 

 

88 Western Alabama Regional Commission. 2012. “District II 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.” Accessed at 

http://warc.info/planning-a-development/documents on August 1, 

2015.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-10

service providers, particularly in the case of rural water 

systems. Poor or missing information can slow service calls and 

repairs that affect residential homes and businesses alike. 

As noted by the WARC team in a recent report on rural water 

systems mapping, obtaining these critical sources of 

information and translating that data into GIS functions are 

complex, time-intensive, and resource-heavy efforts. In 

particular, this report stresses the complications inherent in GIS 

utility mapping fieldwork: weather conditions, satellite position, 

landscape features, and human-made features all affect the 

accuracy and ease of data collection.89 Despite such challenges, 

WARC obtained a fully vetted database that includes the 

locations of all meters, control valves, system valves, water 

mains, fire hydrants, pumping stations, tanks, wells, 

generators, springs, and treatment plants in each of the 

counties. 

According to the participants, past water system information 

was often incomplete, inaccurate, or missing prior to the ARCsupported projects. After these projects, each water 

department has copies of area maps and shapefiles for use 

within their offices’ GIS systems. As a result of these efforts, 

planning, development, and customer service departments can 

regularly use highly accurate information. For example, hazard 

mitigation plans for the seven WARC counties have been 

revised, incorporating the updated data. Volunteer fire 

departments use the maps to serve their communities faster 

and lower insurance rates by optimizing the location of new 

hydrants. These resources were also shared with the Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama 

Rural Water Association. 

Despite this progress, participants explained that the larger 

goal of consolidated utility planning and management remains 

unsatisfied for several reasons. At the local level, continued skill 

development is difficult to access even though WARC offers 

training to municipal and county personnel in maintaining and 

using the GIS data. Furthermore, integration of WARC data into 

 

89 Mayo, Melissa. Western Alabama Regional Commission. “Enhancing 

Water Department Efficiency Using GIS and GPS to produce quality 

maps of rural water system features.” ArcUser Online Publications. 

Accessed at 

http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0408/bamah2o.html on 

August 1, 2015. 

As a result of these 

efforts, planning, 

development, and 

customer service

departments can 

regularly use highly 

accurate information.

Volunteer fire 

departments use the maps 

to serve their 

communities faster and 

lower insurance rates by 

optimizing the location of 

new hydrants.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-11 

a statewide platform by the Alabama Department of Economic 

and Community Affairs has not occurred. 

Lessons Learned 

A diverse and highly informed panel convened for this site visit. 

The attendees included representatives from WARC’s

Community and Economic Development, Transportation 

Planning, and GIS Departments. Collectively, they have 

extensive experience working with distressed communities and 

with the state and federal agencies that support efforts in those 

communities, including ARC. In reviewing the development and 

implementation of these projects and aspects of post-project 

evaluation, they offered the following insights and suggestions: 

 Regional efforts are valuable: The challenges of 

technology adoption can be mediated by attention to 

pace and provision of technical support and training of 

users and adopters targeted within a specific geographic 

scope. 

 Passive resistance can be a limiting force: Technology 

infrastructure projects are about more than engineering 

and deployment. Inadequate attention to nontechnical 

decision makers and public outreach results in problems 

with project management. As such, widespread 

education and adoption depend on securing the 

information needed to ensure the ongoing accuracy of 

the system itself and translating this information to 

everyday users and stakeholders. 

 Highly qualified team members adapt to multiple roles: 

Each member of specialized teams in rural settings often 

plays multiple roles. The WARC team was impressive in 

the span and depth of their technical knowledge and 

their understanding of and commitment to the local 

context in which their efforts are applied. Without an 

engaged team, the necessary data collection would have 

faltered, and the ongoing usability of the database would 

decline. 

 Demand for ARC support continues: WARC leaders 

stated that a “perfect next grant” would support a 

phased project to map all public utilities in the region. 

Despite declining population in many of the rural 

counties, services in these areas are needed and are 

being extended into previously unserved areas. 

Representatives from some member counties also noted 

the demand to expand the mapping database to include 

layers for gas and sewer systems. One vendor of 

alternative rural sewer treatment systems requested the 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-12

data, demonstrating the value of the information beyond 

public sector planning. 

 Funding partners and implementation partners can learn 

from each other: WARC was one of ARC’s first GIS

mapping grants, creating a situation where WARC and 

ARC learned together. WARC leaders think they would 

have benefited from access to best practice models that 

were not yet available. 

7.2.2 Marion County Schools Telecommunications 

Community Profile 

Marion County is located in the northwestern part of Alabama 

on the Mississippi border. ARC denotes Marion County as a 

transitional county. Like many Appalachian counties, it 

underperforms both its state and the nation on key economic 

and demographic metrics (see Table 7-4). Population is 

declining and the median age is increasing, with nearly 20

percent of the population older than 65 years. Marion also 

differs significantly from the state in educational attainment 

metrics: 22 percent of people in Alabama have a college degree 

compared with only 10 percent in Marion County, mirrored by 

an 8.5-point gap in high school graduation rates between the 

state and county.

Table 7-4. Marion County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth(2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment (June 2014)Poverty

Marion County −1.6 19.8 74.6 19,576 8.7 20.9

Alabama 1.4 14.9 83.1 23,680 7.4 18.6

United States 3.3 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-13 

Project Synopsis 

In 2002, Marion County Schools secured funding from ARC for 

T1 equipment to connect five high schools to enable distance 

learning, professional development training for teachers, and 

dual enrollment for students with Bevill State Community 

College (BSCC). Repeated efforts over 2 years to get the T1 

equipment working were unsuccessful. To correct the issues,

BSCC secured ARC funding in 2005. The four main campuses of 

BSCC and two instructional sites offer college courses and 

applied technology opportunities to over one-quarter million 

people in a seven-county area.90 The grant to BSCC underwrote 

the costs of deploying 40.7 miles of publicly owned fiber optic 

line and related equipment to network local schools in Guin, 

Brilliant, Hamilton, Hackleburg, and Bear Creek. With strong 

support from leadership of BSCC and the Marion County 

government, personnel at BSCC assumed responsibility for 

managing the project. The total amount of the grant was 

$450,000; $90,000 in local funds and $360,000 in ARC funds. 

For reasons detailed below, this project closed in 2012 without 

a successful deployment of the fiber network. 

Site Visit Findings 

Marion County totals fewer than 2,000 high school students 

dispersed among five schools, 91 which creates a need to use 

technology to ensure access to distance learning options and 

professional development support for the educational 

workforce. Specifically, participants hoped that a distance 

learning system dependent on a new fiber network would 

provide new options for students dually enrolled with BSCC and 

allow the high school educators to share teaching resources 

among the schools. 

Immediate challenges regarding ownership rights of way for 

buried fiber and poles for aerial attachment slowed the 

deployment of the fiber. The county-wide scale of the project 

alongside the need to involve multiple utility providers and 

municipalities further complicated the fiber installation. 

Additional delays resulted when a tornado devastated two 

 

90 Bevill State Community College. “History.” Accessed at 

http://www.bscc.edu/about/history.php on August 1, 2015. 

91 Hig-Schools.com. “Alabama High Schools.” Accessed at http://highschools.com/directory/al/#cities-in-state on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-14

Marion County towns (Hackleburg and Haleyville).92 According 

to participants, concerted efforts to get insurance companies to 

assist with replacing the destroyed poles and aerial fiber were 

unsuccessful. The project was closed a year later in September 

2012, 7 years after it was initiated. 

Although this grant was terminated without establishing the 

fiber network, the project had two notable positive outcomes. 

Two high schools ordered and successfully installed Blackboard 

Learning Management Systems, allowing students to log into 

educational materials. Educational entities working closely with 

municipalities and county administrators scaled a significant 

learning curve related to right-of-way issues, limitations of fiber 

infrastructure, and the inherent difficulties of advancing 

technology in a highly rural setting. 

Lessons Learned 

The project team found that diligent planning processes both 

prior to soliciting a grant and immediately after obtaining grant 

funding are critical to ongoing success. Specifically, former 

project members offered the following detailed lessons: 

 A representative and stable project team is necessary 

for implementation success: A project team that reflects 

the diverse interests of stakeholder groups and the 

technical expertise within the county would enable the 

next steps required for this scale of fiber installation. 

Additionally, turnover within the project team delayed 

important implementation. Therefore, commitment to 

remain a part of the team until the project is completed 

must be a priority for future partnership models. 

 Contingency planning is crucial: Legal considerations, 

key personnel turnover, technology glitches, and 

disasters can hinder long-term, large-scale projects. 

Best practices include identifying priority success factors 

within the project and then developing alternatives for 

addressing problems related to these project elements. 

 Structured guidelines help grantees plan effectively: 

Project planners would benefit from primers, toolkits, 

and model agreements to guide their interactions with 

advisors and vendors about technical projects. This is 

particularly true in fiber deployment planning with 

 

92 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. 

“Historic Tornado April 27, 2011.” Accessed at 

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/?n=event_04272011Evening World

on August 1, 2015. 

Educational entities 

working closely with 

municipalities and county 

administrators scaled a 

significant learning curve 

related to right-of-way 

issues, limitations of fiber 

infrastructure, and the 

inherent difficulties of 

advancing technology in 

a highly rural setting.

Legal considerations, key 

personnel turnover, 

technology glitches, and 

disasters can hinder longterm, large-scale 

projects.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-15 

unique legal issues to telecommunications projects, such 

as rights of way, access to aerial polls, and buried 

conduits. Alongside such guidelines, strong 

documentation of the project provides direction for 

future efforts and supports post-project evaluation 

learning. 

7.2.3 Whatley Health Services Medical/Dental Equipment 

Community Profile 

Hale County, located in western Alabama, is part of the 

Tuscaloosa metropolitan statistical area. Greensboro is the 

county seat of Hale County and the location of Hale County 

Health Center (HCHC). Challenges facing the county and 

Greensboro are significant: with the loss of several major 

employers, more than 50 percent of residents now work outside 

the county.93 Significant declines in population are projected to 

continue, having dropped more than 10 percent since 2000 to 

the current level of 15,406. 

The county is challenged to attract and retain professional 

service providers, as evidenced by Hale County having the 

largest shortfall of primary care physicians in Alabama in 

2014.94 Performance on other key metrics points to additional 

concern for the county’s prospects, as Hale underperforms 

Alabama and the nation on educational attainment, 

unemployment, per capita income, and percentage living in 

poverty (see Table 7-5). Other distinguishing community 

characteristics include large segments of the population that 

can be described as minority (59 percent African American), 

disabled (25 percent on disability), and solitary older adults (11 

percent of all households are citizens older than 65 years and 

living alone). Thirty-nine percent of Hale citizens receive 

Medicaid assistance.95

 

93 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. 2009-2013. “Commuting 

Characteristics.” Accessed at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productvi

ew.xhtml?src=CF on August 1, 2015. 

94 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2014. “County Health Rankings 

and Roadmaps.” Accessed at 

http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/alabama/2014/measure/

factors/4/map on August 1, 2015. 

95 Alabama Department of Public Health. April 2013. “Selected Health 

Status Indicators: Hale County.” Accessed at 

http://adph.org/ruralhealth/assets/Hale13.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-16

Table 7-5. Hale County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth(2010

–2014)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)

*

Poverty

Hale County −3.7 16.9 77.4 18,812 8.1 26.6

Alabama 1.4 14.9 83.1 23,680 6.4 18.6

United States 3.3 13.0 86.0 28,155 6.1 21.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Project Synopsis 

Whatley Health Services Inc. (WHSI) is a private, nonprofit, 

federally qualified community health center headquartered in 

Tuscaloosa. This institution’s mission is to provide primary 

health care services to the medically underserved residents in 

western Alabama. WHSI began in 1977 as a once-a-week, free 

clinic and now provides comprehensive medical care through 12 

fixed and one mobile facility serving eight counties and two 

dental facilities. WHSI overall serves more than 26,000 patients 

annually, including approximately 20 percent of the region’s 

homeless population. WHSI uses Medicare, Medicaid, and fee 

for service to meet the challenges of providing services on a 

needs-adjusted sliding fee scale. 

ARC funding in 2010 equipped a new satellite facility of WHSI, 

HCHC in rural and distressed Hale County, with medical and 

dental equipment and health-information technology. Alongside 

the medical and dental equipment, computer workstations, 

scanners, servers, and other technology improvements were 

introduced at this site to enable electronic medical record 

keeping, produce specialized reports, and track the necessary 

treatments for chronic diseases. This updated equipment also 

ensured that staff followed evidence-based treatment plans. 

ARC awarded $165,678, 80 percent of the total needed to equip 

and fully staff the new facility. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-17 

Site Visit Findings 

WHSI expanded after 2001 when a similar organization 

terminated its services. The Health Research Service 

Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services asked WHSI to expand its services and fill this 

gap in health care supply to low-income residents. As a result, 

with HRSA and HCHC funding, WHSI built a full-service 

permanent facility in 2009. Funding from ARC in 2010 

supported the equipment and technology necessary for the 

center’s operations. This comprehensive medical and dental 

care facility opened in January 2011 in Greensboro, the county 

seat and location of the Hale County Hospital. 

WHSI is a successful project that enabled the delivery of 

comprehensive medical and dental services in a severely 

underserved rural community. For example, according to 

participants, the adoption of electronic dental records was 

facilitated by ARC-funded training. Although there was an initial 

loss of productivity as the new system was implemented, 

doctors and staff recognize the benefits of being able to share 

records in real -time with colleagues, graph individuals’ health 

trends, expedite reporting, and empower patients. Other 

benefits cited for HCHC patients include improved accuracy and 

security of records and the ability for patients to leave the 

office with a hard-copy report that details their visit, treatment 

plan, and instructions. 

ARC funding also enabled redundant connectivity services that 

link the HCHC to the full WHSI network of 12 locations in eight 

counties. In a medical context, redundancy ensures continuity 

of services. Furthermore, telehealth services link WHSI patients 

and personnel with specialized services, projects, and programs 

in urban medical centers. This has strengthened the 

relationship between WHSI and the larger medical research and 

training community. For example, local AIDS patients receive 

education and support services remotely through a partnership 

with the Medical School at the University of Alabama at 

Birmingham (UAB). The value of the telehealth option for 

specialist consults is particularly compelling given the 

demographics of the Center’s low-income patient population. 

For many of their patients, the lack of personal or public 

transportation or the ability to pay for it would otherwise 

prohibit access to major medical services. 

WHSI is a successful 

project that enabled the 

delivery of comprehensive 

medical and dental 

services in a severely 

underserved rural 

community.

Telehealth services link 

WHSI patients and 

personnel with 

specialized services, 

projects, and programs in 

urban medical centers. 

This has strengthened the 

relationship between 

WHSI and the larger 

medical research and 

training community.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-18

Significant progress has been made toward the project’s 

broader goals, but some projected outcomes have required 

adjustment. Although the number of patients served at the 

improved dental facilities continues to grow, efforts to recruit 

an additional part-time dentist have been unsuccessful. 

Historically, when WHSI had a dental staff vacancy, they 

recruited a dentist from the UAB Dental School; however, no 

graduates have committed to positions in the past 3 years. 

According to WHSI leaders, other recruitment efforts targeting 

dentists from schools and practices outside of Alabama have 

been stymied by the lack of reciprocity in licensing between 

Alabama and other states. 

Although WHSI was not successful in adding the part-time 

dentist, they were able to use funding to strengthen the 

Center’s medical resources. When the new center first opened, 

it employed a full-time dentist 4 days per week, a part-time 

nurse practitioner 3 days per week, and an internal medicine 

practitioner 5 days per week. ARC funding also supported the 

addition of a full-time family medicine practitioner. 

Participants said delays in medical and dental personnel 

recruitment are a partial explanation for why WHSI did not 

meet its original goal to serve 8,300 patients in the first 

2 years. WHSI currently serves 5,000 patients, and 80 percent 

of patients are seen on multiple occasions. This amounts to 

approximately one-third of the county’s residents. WHSI 

leaders acknowledged their expanded outreach and public 

awareness campaigns to grow their patient population. For 

example, to overcome the perception that the Hale Center 

serves only patients in need of public assistance, WHSI 

rebranded its image by partnering with Blue Cross and other 

private insurance providers. They view this effort as clear 

communication of WHSI’s interest in also serving the county’s 

insured population. 

WHSI currently serves 

5,000 patients, and 80

percent of patients are 

seen on multiple 

occasions. This amounts 

to approximately onethird of the county’s 

residents.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-19 

The lack of ubiquitous high-speed broadband Internet services 

limits the full realization of investment in HCHC. WHSI leaders 

also stated that beyond availability, the full use of telemedicine 

continues to be hampered by a plethora of rules, regulations, 

permitting, licensing, and credentialing requirements that 

impede WHSI’s ability to deliver some services, such as mental 

health. WHSI leaders suggest that ARC might consider offering 

planning grants to support organizations’ development of and 

advocacy for policies and reforms needed to use telemedicine 

across applications and geographic boundaries. 

Lessons Learned 

Insights shared by WHSI leaders can inform future efforts to 

improve health care access and delivery in rural communities 

and more specifically inform the use of technology and 

telehealth. These suggestions include the following: 

 Creativity is needed to attract expertise to rural regions: 

ongoing and multifaceted partnerships with schools and 

institutions that train the targeted medical, dental, and 

research personnel are needed to recruit health care 

professionals to rural locations. For example, WHSI 

works proactively to increase awareness and interest 

among prospective providers by partnering with UAB to 

pilot telehealth research and care programs, providing 

rural residency opportunities, serving on admission 

committees for incoming students, participating in Rural 

Medical Scholars programs, and teaching classes on 

rural medicine and dentistry. 

 Technology is only part of the answer: Technology 

allowed WSHI to expand its patient care services; 

however, the center has faced unsuccessful efforts to 

deliver mental health services. Externally mediated 

regulations along with burdensome intake and service 

approval processes not yet adapted to virtual platforms 

introduce tangible hurdles for WHSI’s full realization of 

the investment’s potential impact.

7.2.4 Fannin County Workforce Development 

Community Profile 

Seasonal tourism and a declining manufacturing industry 

introduce instability in Fannin County’s economy. Currently, 

Fannin County’s two largest manufacturers employ only a total 

The full use of 

telemedicine continues to 

be hampered by a 

plethora of rules, 

regulations, permitting, 

licensing, and 

credentialing 

requirements that impede 

WHSI’s ability to deliver 

some services, such as 

mental health.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-20

of 121 people.96 All of Fannin’s municipalities are losing 

population, and the number of residents older than 65 years is 

double that of the state and the nation. Furthermore, the area 

underperforms both the state and the nation on metrics of 

educational attainment, poverty, per capita income, and overall 

population growth (see Table 7-6).

Table 7-6. Fannin County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth(2010

–2014)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty 

Fannin County 0.3 24.6 79.0 19,164 8.1 23.0

Georgia 4.2 12.0 84.7 25,182 6.1 18.2

United States 3.3 13.0 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

The need to diversify and grow opportunities for employment in 

Fannin County is shared by other Appalachian counties in the 

region, and workforce training to support a more diversified 

economy is seen as pivotal to improving the employment 

prospects of Fannin County residents.97,98 In 2005, when Fannin 

received an ARC Workforce Training grant, the area was 

considered “transitional.” In FY 2016, Fannin County has 

 

96 Northwest Georgia Regional Commission. Community and Economic 

Development. 2012. “Northwest Georgia Regional Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy.” Accessed at 

http://www.nwgrc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012_NWGRC_CEDS_Draft_revised.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

97 Fannin County Economic Development Authority. 2009 “Partial 

Update for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan.” Accessed at 

https://www.dca.ga.gov/largefiles/OPQG/2009/FanninCo.BlueRidge

Ci.McCaysvilleCi.MorgantonCi.Prtl.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

98 University of North Georgia. 2014. “North Georgia Regional 

Education and Economic Development Task Force Summary.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.caes.uga.edu/center/caed/pubs/documents/Fannin_120

3.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-21 

declined to an “at risk” status.99 This fall mirrors a trend across 

the state where 30 of the 37 Georgia counties in the 

Appalachian Region moved to a more challenged status (see 

Table 7-7).

Year

DistressedAt RiskTransitionalCompetitiveAttainment

2004 0 0 29 5 3

2016 3 12 20 2 0

Source: ARC Data Reports 

Project Synopsis 

Bolstered by the success of previous ARC support to establish 

broadband Internet service in the Region’s underserved 

communities, the Fannin County Development Authority (FCDA) 

committed $327,200 to match ARC funding of $263,000 in 

2005. The project focused on renovations and equipment for a 

workforce training facility in a former Levi Strauss 

manufacturing facility in Blue Ridge, Georgia. An unexpected 

opportunity to sell this facility to a different company, bringing 

more than 100 jobs back to the county, necessitated the 

relocation of the workforce training facility to a new, more 

remote location. Upon completion of the facility and its opening 

in 2005, training and business support programs were 

implemented in collaboration with Appalachian Technical 

College (ATC), University of Georgia Small Business Consulting, 

Blue Ridge Mountain Arts Association, and the Fannin Literacy 

Action Group. Offerings included credit and noncredit courses, 

small business counseling, business training for arts-based 

enterprises, and literacy programs. 

First-year metrics included 75 enrolled students, resulting in 40 

graduate licensed nurse practitioners and 320 hours of 

consulting for 110 clients. The ARTS association offered two 

sessions of the Core Four Business Training to 29 participants, 

 

99 Appalachian Regional Commission. County Economic Status and 

Distressed Areas in Appalachia. “County Economic Status and 

Distressed Areas in Appalachia by State, FY 2016.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/countyeconomicstatusandd

istressedareasinappalachia.asp on August 1, 2015. 

Table 7-7. Change in 

Georgia Appalachian 

County Economic Status 

2004–2016

Upon completion of the 

facility and its opening in 

2005, training and 

business support 

programs were 

implemented in 

collaboration with 

Appalachian Technical 

College (ATC), 

University of Georgia 

Small Business 

Consulting, Blue Ridge 

Mountain Arts 

Association, and the 

Fannin Literacy Action 

Group.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-22

and the literacy program served 185 students. This strong start 

was interrupted by a midstream withdrawal of ATC as a 

partner. In addition, the remote location of the facility caused 

issues for many attendees. The project eventually ceased 

operations as a result. The equipment, software, and 

computers were transferred to North Georgia Technical College, 

and the furniture was repurposed for use by FCDA. 

Site Visit Findings 

As noted in Fannin County’s Comprehensive Plan, the role of 

tourism in their economy is limited, and broader demographic 

and economic improvements must be achieved through 

improved educational attainment and diversifying the skill mix 

through workforce training programs.100 According to 

participants, the development of such programs in the old Levi 

Strauss facility in the most populous section of the county, 

purchased by FCDA, was a step toward filling the workforce 

development demands. 

As a result of the opportunity to sell the Levi Strauss facility, 

which meant new local jobs, FCDA relocated the planned 

workforce development training center to a vacant elementary 

school that had been used as a satellite location for Rinehart 

College until their operation closed. Unforeseen questions 

regarding accreditation and an inability to attract enough fulltime equivalent students to justify the expense of operations 

led ATC to withdraw from the program. Fannin County then 

transferred much of the software and equipment to the North 

Georgia Technical College for use in computer, cosmetology, 

medical, and emergency medical technician training programs. 

The resources are used for their original purpose, however, not 

in the originally planned facility. 

Lessons Learned 

Although FCDA fell short of its workforce training program 

goals, participants nonetheless offer lessons that can benefit 

other organizations planning to implement similar initiatives: 

 A balanced commitment among partners is 

important: FCDA provided the vision and the 

initiative to obtain funding but needed long-term 

 

100 Fannin County Economic Development Authority. 2009 “Partial 

Update for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan.” Accessed at 

https://www.dca.ga.gov/largefiles/OPQG/2009/FanninCo.BlueRidge

Ci.McCaysvilleCi.MorgantonCi.Prtl.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

Fannin County then 

transferred much of the 

software and equipment 

to the North Georgia 

Technical College for use 

in computer, 

cosmetology, medical, 

and emergency medical 

technician training 

programs. The resources 

are used for their original 

purpose, however, not in 

the originally planned 

facility.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-23 

partners who were committed to seeing the project 

past the start-up period. 

 Community resources must be well located and 

accessible to maximize participation: Rural 

remoteness limited the accessibility of the newly 

available training resources. The decision to use an 

available, old elementary school in a remote location 

limited potential participation. 

 Best practices for contingency planning and 

adaptability would benefit project leaders: Prompted 

by their experiences with the workforce development 

center project, FCDA suggested that leaders from all 

ARC projects could benefit from cross-cutting 

guidance on how to plan for and adjust to 

unexpected events that affect priority factors in 

project implementation. 

 Persistence pays off: FCDA and other community 

leaders have persisted for more than a decade to 

deliver a permanent workforce training solution to 

the county. When work to build the multipurpose 

education facility failed, they proactively petitioned 

to obtain technical education and training from a 

different institution, subsequently securing the fulltime presence of a satellite campus of the North 

Georgia Technical College and the state funding 

needed to operate its local programs. 

7.2.5 Kentucky Regional High Growth Training Center 

Community Profile 

Pulaski County is part of the 10-county, 14-municipality Lake 

Cumberland Area Development District (LCADD), located in 

south-central Kentucky. Thirty percent of the population in this 

district lives in Pulaski County, the third largest in the state. 

Long dominated by textiles, the local economy is now much 

more diverse, with emerging tourism ($111 million in 2010) 

and agriculture sectors.101 ARC considered Pulaski County “at 

risk” between FY 2007 and FY 2016. Although the county has 

lower unemployment than the state average, it has higher 

poverty and lower per capita income (see Table 7-8).

 

101 Lake Cumberland Area Development District. 2013. 

“Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2013.” Accessed 

at 

http://lcadd.org/manager/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi

ew&id=33&Itemid=52 on August 1, 2015. 

The decision to use an 

available, old elementary 

school in a remote 

location limited potential 

participation.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-24

Table 7-8. Pulaski County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth(2010

–2014)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty Rate

Pulaski County 1.2 17.2 79.9 20,667 7.6 23.3

Kentucky 1.7 14.4 83.0 23,462 8.5 18.8

United States 3.3 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Project Synopsis 

Local leaders founded the Regional High Growth Training Center 

as a response to a need for power line workers to install, 

maintain, and repair electric power and telephone lines and 

fiber optic cable. Industry projections showed more than 20 

percent of linemen eligible for retirement within 2 years. A 

planning group determined that this was an opportunity to 

address a pressing industry need, create job opportunities 

needed in this economically depressed region, and upgrade 

skills through apprentice-level training. 

A diverse group of public and private stakeholders partnered to 

develop the proposed training center, including Somerset 

Community College (SCC), South Kentucky Rural Electric 

Cooperative Corporation (SKRECC), and the Somerset Pulaski 

County Development Foundation (SPCDF). SPCDF partnered 

with the Pulaski County Fiscal Court to obtain a Community 

Development Block Grant (CBDG) of $1,000,000 toward the 

total construction costs of $2,479,000 for a utilities lineman 

training center. Other contributions included $500,000 from 

ARC; $500,000 from the U.S. Economic Development 

Administration; $50,000 from SKRECC, who obtained an 

additional $429,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant program; and 

SPCDF provided the land. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-25 

The LCADD coordinated the project, which included public 

contributions such as infrastructure, water, and highway 

improvements. SCC leased the training center, developed the 

curriculum, and coordinated the education training programs. 

When completed, the facility had 10,000 square feet of office 

space and 38,000 square feet of training facilities. Classes 

began in August 2008. 

Site Visit Findings 

Once local leaders had identified the need for electrical line 

worker training, partners faced challenges in coordination and 

funding. The project coordinator regularly brought the partners 

together for discussion of any problems that arose. Community 

college representatives developed the training program using 

best practices from other lineman training programs and a 

curriculum donated by the American Electric Power Company to 

the Kentucky Community and Technical College System. 

The curriculum is rigorous and competitive. To apply, an 

applicant must have a high school diploma or a General 

Educational Development (GED). Classes run for 32 weeks and 

include industry-standard training in the following tasks: 

climbing utility poles, hanging wire, operating a truck (bucket 

and digger type), making service connections, and ensuring 

workplace safety. 

Upon graduation, the Kentucky Department of Labor provides 

an apprentice certificate to graduates who qualify to become 

journey linemen with an average salary of $35,000 and the 

ability to gain at least 10 percent overtime during the year. In 

addition, advancement to Journey Lineman 2 is possible during 

the next few years, taking salaries to nearly $65,000 plus 

overtime. Experienced linemen average $75,000, plus generous 

benefit packages and overtime, which often amounts to 

earnings over $100,000 per year. 

Experienced linemen 

average $75,000, plus

generous benefit 

packages and overtime,

which often amounts to 

earnings over $100,000 

per year.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-26

After 6 years, 807 individuals have been enrolled in the Center, 

591 have completed certification and 502 were employed as 

linemen as of December 2014. The center provides five basic 

lineman training sessions each year with a potential class size 

of 25, as well as two advanced lineman training sessions with a 

typical class size of 9. During the first 2 years, 50 students 

received training. The program has also been proactive in 

reaching out to both genders to ensure both men and women 

benefit from lineman training and subsequent job opportunities. 

The program is active and planning to expand. Currently, five 

people are employed by the center, and the Cumberland 

Workforce Investment Area recently received grant funding for 

two new training programs at the center in (1) smart grid 

installation and operation and (2) energy audit training. This 

training will help utility companies in Kentucky compete in the 

growing smart grid and clean technology market and provide 

the local workforce with high-paying jobs in the future.102

Lessons Learned 

This project has been successful in coordinating local 

stakeholders and creating competitive, high-paying jobs for 

over 500 people in Kentucky. The following factors contributed 

to the success of this project: 

 Matching critical needs with solutions that can deliver: A 

community needed jobs and had a ready pool of 

potential students and trainees. The local electric co-op

was a strong supporter of the project and was set to 

benefit by employing skilled graduates. As a result of 

the program, trainees were prepared for high-paying 

jobs and addressed a local workforce need. 

 Strong partnerships yield strong solutions: Many 

different parties came together to develop and finance 

efforts that were in their individual and collective 

interests. None of the partners expected sole credit for 

successes. 

 Coordination rather than control is critical in 

multipartner efforts: The coordinator of the development 

project from the development district office kept 

 

102Lake Cumberland Area Development District Board of Directors. 

2013. “Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2013: 

Mapping the Progress of the Lake Cumberland Area Economy.” 

Accessed at 

http://lcadd.org/manager/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc

_view&gid=135&Itemid=87 on August 1, 2015.

After 6 years, 807 

individuals have been 

enrolled in the Center, 

591 have completed 

certification and 502 

were employed as 

linemen as of December 

2014.

This project has been 

successful in coordinating 

local stakeholders and 

creating competitive, 

high-paying jobs for over 

500 people in Kentucky.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-27 

everyone on target. Once launched, the center was 

managed by the community college that was highly 

capable of providing the curriculum, training, and 

oversight of the program. 

 Be expansive in targeting beneficiaries: In this industry, 

lineman jobs are populated predominantly by males, and 

outreach has targeted that gender. Careful consideration 

should be given in training programs as to whether 

there are options for work modifications or use of 

alternative techniques to expand opportunities to include 

qualified members of both genders. 

 Pragmatic, strategic projects can bring together parties 

with different needs and address a pressing need in the 

short term: This model for public–private partnerships 

can lead to a long-term vision and build collaborative 

capacity among stakeholders. 

7.2.6 Allegany County Public School Smart Board 

Community Profile 

Allegany County is located in Maryland’s northwestern 

panhandle. When compared with the state of Maryland, it has 

high unemployment and low median income and is the only 

county in the state experiencing net population loss.103 By 

ARC’s measurements, the county has been designated as 

“transitional” since 2002. The economy is in transition, as the 

employment focus shifts progressively from its historical base 

of large-scale manufacturing, mining, and agriculture to small 

manufacturing, sustainable energy, information technology, and 

tourism.104 This economic transition requires an investment in 

education to prepare workers for skilled jobs. Although 

educational attainment at the high school level is comparable to 

state and national averages, the region has a lower rate of 

college graduates (see Table 7-9).

 

103 Alleghany County Commission. 2014. “Alleghany County 

Comprehensive Plan.” Accessed at 

https://www.maryland.gov/PDF/OurWork/CompPlans/Allegany/14_

CMP_Draft_Allegany.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

104 Frese, John (ed.). 2006. “Reality Check Plus Participant Guidebook 

Western MD Section.” National Center for Smart Growth Research 

and Education. Accessed at 

http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/assets/documents/rcp/western_maryl

and_guidebook_section.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-28

Table 7-9. Allegany County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty, %2009

–2013

Alleghany County −2.1 18.9 87.3 21,211 7.6 17.4

Maryland 2.9 13.4 88.7 36,354 6.1 9.8

United States 2.5 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; * Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the 

following data categories: population growth, population > 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, 

and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics 

Map sourced for the following data category: unemployment (June 2014). 

Project Synopsis 

To improve classroom instruction at the high school level, the 

Board of Education (BOE) purchased 200 Smart Boards for 20 

classrooms to support instruction in science and technology, 

beginning with Algebra I. ARC contributed 50 percent of the 

funding for the $40,000 project, with the remainder coming 

from the BOE. Lead teachers took approximately 15 hours of 

training before placing the Smart Boards in classrooms and 

then trained other teachers. The goal was to see a 20 percent 

increase in the number of students receiving a passing score on 

the Maryland State Assessment for Algebra/Data Analysis, with 

509 of the 651 students taking Algebra in the Smart Board 

equipped classrooms. Outcomes available in summer 2010 

included the following: 

 Classrooms with computer-connected Smart Boards 

offered access to engaging teaching websites and 

knowledge outside their classroom. Teachers used them 

to tailor the educational materials to the needs of the 

students. 

 Using Smart Boards, teachers could face their students 

rather than the blackboard and were better able to 

manage their classrooms. Students are engaged by 

digital presentations and are able to obtain materials for 

small group or independent work on the topic the 

teacher has just presented to them. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-29 

 Students gained knowledge in using digital tools to 

communicate and interact with teachers. 

 Smart Boards allowed real-time monitoring through 

multiple choice tests that students click through as 

material is being presented. 

Site Visit Findings 

Successful use of classroom technology such as Smart Bards 

requires school systems to continually upgrade their 

information networks and training capacity for teachers. 

Allegany County was an early adopter of the anchor tenant 

strategy for encouraging broadband Internet deployment, 

signing on with Allconet, an advanced educational network, 

when it came online in 1994.105 The Smart Board project was 

another step in the long-term, continued use of educational 

technology in Allegany County, much of which was funded in 

part through other ARC grants. 

The BOE’s Chief Information Officer worked with the educators 

in the county to gain the equipment and training capacity to 

enable the Smart Board equipment to enhance the learning 

environment of the classroom and the capability of teachers to 

develop interactive lesson plans for students. He contributed 

much of the success of the project to the train-the-teacher 

model, where teachers were encouraged to train colleagues on 

the new technology. He said that teacher–student engagement 

while using the Smart Boards led to an increase in student 

achievement. Math teachers saw that the interactive Smart 

Boards drew students into a more engaged learning process 

and the result was an increase in math scores. 

Lessons Learned 

This project provides a best practice model in the effective 

deployment of new technology in an educational setting. The 

success of this model was bolstered by (1) its appropriate use 

of good research design and evaluation to document impact 

and (2) its creative use of pilot projects to engage trainers, 

teachers, and students. Successful expansion of the project 

documents it as a win-win for all involved and points to the 

following lessons: 

 

105 Columbia Telecommunications Corporation. 2012. “Broadband in 

Alleghany County: Status, Opportunities, and Strategies.” Prepared 

for Alleghany County Public Schools, Board of Education. 

Successful use of 

classroom technology 

such as Smart Bards 

requires school systems 

to continually upgrade 

their information 

networks and training 

capacity for teachers.

Math teachers saw that 

the interactive Smart 

Boards drew students into 

a more engaged learning 

process.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-30

 Leadership that is cross-cutting and continuous leads to 

success: This project was advantaged in having an 

organized and knowledgeable person at the helm that 

was involved in managing access, deployment, and 

adoption for the entirety of the period. This was a 

phased project in which a major community anchor 

institution was integral to effecting positive change in its 

own operation and performance and in the broader 

community. Having the Chief Information Officer 

involved on so many levels was important to the effort’s 

success. 

 Engaging and empowering adopters is fundamentally 

important: Teachers were involved in every aspect of 

this project, acknowledging the critical role they play in 

adoption of educational technology. Including teachers 

in testing and selecting electronic boards and other 

tools, and following a train-the-trainer model built 

internal champions and mentors who were critical to the 

success of the project. 

7.2.7 Three Rivers Electronic Filing System 

Community Profile 

Three Rivers Planning and Development District (TRPDD) was 

established by local government and business leaders in 1972 

as a nonprofit organization to promote economic development 

and short- and long-term planning and provide services for 

social and economic development in an eight-county region in 

northeast Mississippi. As needed, activities extend to adjacent 

counties. 

The TRPDD eight-county region contains multiple Appalachian 

counties designated as “at risk” or “distressed.” TRPDD leaders 

characterize employment historically in the region as low-skill, 

low-wage manufacturing. Only 77 percent of TRPDD residents 

are high school graduates, below state and national averages. 

Reflecting the low wages, per capita income underperforms the 

national average in all TRPDD counties. The region has a larger 

population over 65, and some counties have experienced 

significant population decline over the last 4 years (see 

Table 7-10). 

This was a phased project 

in which a major 

community anchor 

institution was integral to 

effecting positive change 

in its own operation and 

performance and in the 

broader community.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-31 

Table 7-10. Three River Planning District Counties’ Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty, %

Calhoun County −1.5 17.3 68.2 17,034 8.4 23.7

Chickasaw County −0.4 15.3 72.0 16,677 10.7 25.3

Itawamba County 0.3 17.3 76.7 18,106 8.2 15.7

Lee County 3.1 14.0 82.9 21,799 8.1 22.7

Monroe County −2.4 17.2 76.7 18,167 10.8 21.6

Pontotoc County 2.7 13.7 76.4 18,576 7.5 14.0

Union County 2.3 15.5 76.1 19,273 6.8 23.5

Mississippi 0.8 13.9 81.5 20,168 8.5 22.7

United States 3.3 13.0 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Project Synopsis 

Guided by a vision of bringing all member counties fully online, 

TRPDD secured a $200,000 grant from ARC in 2005 to 

implement electronic filing throughout its service region. 

Matched by $844,504, this grant underwrote the acquisition 

and upfitting of a central data room in Tupelo Mississippi (Lee 

County) to support a multicounty data management network. 

In addition, $7,500 was provided to each of the region’s three 

distressed counties help them acquire necessary computer and 

software components. The remaining 10 Appalachian counties 

purchased computer equipment and software packages at their 

own expense. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-32

Site Visit Findings 

TRPDD operates a centralized data and network support center 

in Tupelo, located in a building that was renovated in 2005 with 

local funds and upfitted with ARC-funded servers and other 

hardware and software. TRPDD operated as an Internet service 

provider (ISP) in 2005 and was able to tie other data sites into 

the central Tupelo location. Through bulk purchases of 

computers, TRPDD was able to reduce the per-unit price by 

$300and exert informed quality control on partner counties, 

some of which lacked IT personnel, servers, or even computers 

in their courthouses. Initial implementation and operations 

went well, with the filing application software developed and 

maintained by a private vendor. A critical challenge arose when 

the vendor fraudulently hacked counties’ records to create 

problems the vendor would have to solve for a fee. Subsequent 

legal battles resulted in judgment against the vendor and the 

dissolution of the vendor’s company. Two factors are cited in 

the successful recovery of the effort: TRPDD had the financial 

strength that allowed it to persevere in the case. It struck a 

partnership with Mississippi State University to develop an 

alternative open source software solution that could be 

upgraded as needed, which continues to be in use 10 years 

later. 

The original plan called for the project to enable records in all 

participating counties to be filed electronically for use by 

government officials. The value of this was graphically 

demonstrated during a visit to the archives section of a partner 

county’s courts, where volumes of paper records store 

information from before digitization in 2000. Staff today report 

more than 100 information requests each day from lawyers, 

banks, and real estate agents. Beyond the physical resources 

required to produce and maintain the records, the county 

benefits in time saved by automated key word searches 

featured by digital records. Other benefits are volume purchase 

of hardware and a common software platform that improved 

standardization and quality control. 

Today, TRPDD’s network serves multiple operations in 13 

counties, five planning and development districts, and 15 

different court systems. Local stakeholders attribute the 

electronic filing system grant to seeding these developments. 

TRPDD leaders characterize this project as being highly 

It struck a partnership 

with Mississippi State 

University to develop an 

alternative open source 

software solution that 

could be upgraded as 

needed, which continues 

to be in use 10 years 

later.

Today, TRPDD’s network 

serves multiple 

operations in 13 counties,

five planning and 

development districts, 

and 15 different court 

systems. Local 

stakeholders attribute the 

electronic filing system 

grant to seeding these 

developments.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-33 

successful and critical to longer-term development of egovernment in the region. 

TRPDD leaders point to the 2005 ARC grant as underwriting egovernment capacity in northeastern Mississippi and creating 

opportunities for significantly improved services and cost 

savings. They rate ARC a “tremendous partner for improving 

local government efficiencies,” pointing to the following 

outcomes of efforts initiated in 2005: 

 Point-to-point wireless data transmission system 

connecting four towers in Monroe County is backhauled 

to the TRPDD network center in Tupelo, allowing annual 

savings of $50,000. 

 Centralization of technical services and quality control, 

with TRPDD technical staff approving all vendors and 

supplying technical support for 16 counties, some of 

which have no IT staff. 

 With the advent of cloud platforms, TRPDD has reduced 

the number of physical servers from 48 to 12 by offering 

virtual hosting services. 

 Operation of a state-of-the-art hybrid cloud at the 

Tupelo network center supports secure backup of 

sensitive records, such as Medicaid and child support. 

The service can be customized to the data needs of the 

client. 

 Fragmented GIS mapping services are available, but 

plans are underway to centralize and complete GIS 

offerings for the region. 

 Web sites for member counties and municipalities have 

been developed and maintained in the network by 

TRPDD. This was supported by a separate ARC grant. 

 Technical support is offered for E-911.

 Accounting software and support is provided for counties 

and municipalities. 

 Support and training for a district-owned court 

management system. An effort to transition to public 

records access over the Internet is underway; 

importantly this will provide three levels of tiered 

access: (1) the public; (2) judges, court staff, and Clerk 

of Court; and (3) Clerk of Court only. This effort was 

supported by a separate ARC grant to acquire the 

additional servers. 

 In partnership with the U.S. Economic Development 

Administration as a funding partner, online tax and car 

TRPDD leaders point to 

the 2005 ARC grant as 

underwriting egovernment capacity in 

northeastern Mississippi 

and creating 

opportunities for 

significantly improved 

services and cost savings. 

They rate ARC a 

“tremendous partner for 

improving local 

government efficiencies.”
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-34

registration have been made available to residents in the 

region. 

TRPDD operates on the premise that collaboration and 

partnership are essential to progress. The success of this 

approach is evidenced by the organization’s receipt of a top 

performer award from the National Association of Development 

Organizations 12 times, and the long-term director of TRPDD 

named one of the top economic developers in the nation for 

2015. Beyond awards, TRPDD credits its innovative government 

capacity to its role in applying collaboration, leadership, and 

vision in the 2007 recruiting coup that brought 2,000 Toyota 

jobs to Tupelo. 

Lessons Learned 

TRPDD points to the value of regional planning, open systems 

solutions, and persistence in pursuit of goals when challenges 

arise: 

 Switching to open-source software gave TRPDD the 

ability to customize and update it as needed and the 

capacity to avoid the sort of vendor issues that TRPDD 

initially experienced. Leaders suggest that ARC should 

exercise particular care when investing in software to 

help awardees avoid being trapped in using applications 

beyond their useful life. 

 Citing equipment costs as their biggest concern, TRPDD 

leaders noted the importance of ARC’s flexible 

approaches to allow grant recipients to modify plans and 

make necessary changes to encourage project success. 

The dynamic nature of developments in technology can 

result in the need for midstream hardware adjustments, 

so flexibility needs to be an explicit contingency. 

 An unacknowledged tension exists between the value of 

consolidating technical services to expedite technology 

adoption in a low-capacity setting and the desirability of 

encouraging greater development of local capacity to 

manage the integration of technology into operations: 

While northeastern Mississippi has benefited from the 

centralization of IT as it relates to major elements of egovernment services, smooth operation of the composite 

network and many of the operations it supports depends 

on a highly specialized four-person staff. 

The dynamic nature of 

developments in 

technology can result in 

the need for midstream 

hardware adjustments, so 

flexibility needs to be an 

explicit contingency.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-35 

7.2.8 Schuyler-Chemung-Tioga Board of Cooperative 

Educational Services (BOCES) Educational Opportunities 

Network (EON) 

Community Profile 

Schuyler, Chemung, and Tioga Counties are located in 

southwestern New York and contain 21 school districts that 

collaborate through a BOCES. A total of 37 BOCES share 

educational resources in rural areas of New York. All three 

counties have high school graduation rates above the state 

average, and the region has relatively low unemployment and 

poverty rates (see Table 7-11).

Table 7-11. Chemung-Schuyler-Tioga Counties’ Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty, %

Chemung County −1.2 16.7 88.8 25,329 6.1 15.7

Schuyler County 0.7 18.6 89.1 24,173 6.1 11.5

Tioga County −2.5 17.4 90.9 27,230 5.8 9.3

New York 1.6 14.4 85.2 32,382 6.2 15.3

United States 3.3 13.0 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Project Synopsis 

Twenty-one school districts located in Southern New York 

comprise Greater Southern Tier BOCES, a regional educational 

cooperative operating in Schuyler, Chemung, Tioga, Steuben, 

and Allegany Counties. In cooperation with local partners 

including surrounding school districts, the BOCES received two 

grants from ARC. The first grant in 2007 underwrote personnel 

and telecommunications line service costs associated with the 

provision of Internet2 services for county school systems: 

Internet2 is a fiber optic network designed for research and 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-36

education. The network expanded service to 35,000 students in 

21 school districts and allowed for the implementation of 

course-specific programming. ARC funded $149,732.00 of the 

effort, and local partners funded $156,830. 

The second ARC grant of $50,000 in 2009 developed and 

delivered distance learning programs for both teachers and 

students using the fiber optic network. This grant was matched 

by $79,000 from local partners. The grantee and its partners 

worked with schools, teachers, and individuals and with the 

New York State Education Research Network (NYSER NET) to 

develop a cost-sharing model to reduce expenses and expand 

programs for schools. 

Site Visit Findings 

The economic challenges confronting the region are visible in 

the school systems, which lack personnel and resources to seek 

additional funds to update video and distance learning 

equipment. Resources obtained with the ARC grant addressed 

these shortcomings by enabling students from districts of all 

sizes to participate in the distance learning program. Schools 

were able to offer specialized language classes, including 

Spanish, Mandarin, and American Sign Language. One student 

from Watkins Glen High School learned sign language and went 

on to the Rochester Technical Institute for the Deaf to become 

an interpreter. The distance learning program also enabled 

students to access classes they would need to meet college 

entrance requirements. 

Local stakeholders explained that there was a strong sense of 

community support for the grant given its educational focus 

and because it addressed a general lack of innovative 

educational activities in the region. Class-to-class collaboration 

and collaborative meetings through telecommunications 

technology allowed students and teachers access to resources 

at multiple schools, giving the project a regional impact. Staff 

emphasized that ARC funds were important to the successful 

implementation and promotion of the project across the region. 

Lessons Learned 

Insights and lessons learned from this grant include the 

following: 

 A regional approach makes broadband Internet 

deployment more cost-effective: Building on a model of 

Schools were able to offer 

specialized language 

classes, including

Spanish, Mandarin, and 

American Sign Language. 

One student from Watkins 

Glen High School learned 

sign language and went 

on to the Rochester 

Technical Institute for the 

Deaf to become an 

interpreter.

Class-to-class 

collaboration and 

collaborative meetings 

through 

telecommunications 

technology allowed 

students and teachers 

access to resources at 

multiple schools, giving 

the project a regional 

impact.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-37 

regional cooperation, Greater Southern Tier BOCES was 

able to leverage resources and achieve sufficient scale to 

deliver critical virtual services and courses to students 

and schools that otherwise could not have obtained 

them. Schools were eager to participate because they 

were not required to pay for service or the initial 

equipment. Regional cooperation also helps ensure that 

assets like data centers have higher utilization rates and 

less idle time. 

 Technology adoption benefits from proactive outreach 

and promotion: This ARC grant was particularly helpful 

in creating awareness across the region of specialized 

virtual courses. For example, video conferencing 

supports science classes that are not available within the 

Southern Tier region of New York. 

 Schools in low-wealth communities need to be vigilant 

and proactive to leverage needed assistance: Greater 

Southern Tier BOCES used multiple funding sources to 

develop its virtual education network and programs. 

Armed with more timely and comprehensive information 

on available assistance, communities can be more 

competitive for federal resources and able to leverage 

opportunities. 

7.2.9 Rutherford County Broadband Internet Expansion 

Community Profile 

Rutherford County is located in southwestern North Carolina on 

the South Carolina border. Rutherford County is economically 

diverse: scenic Lake Lure and Chimney Rock recreational areas 

in the west are strong magnets for tourism and retirement 

communities; agriculture dominates in the northeast; and the 

central and southeastern parts are more industrialized, although 

the mix of industry here has experienced changes over the past 

decade. Manufacturing employment is half of what it was in 

2000, declining from 28.6 percent of the workforce to 14 

percent today. Layoffs and permanent job losses between 2003 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-38

and 2012 totaled 4,200, and now 24 percent of the workforce is 

employed outside of the county.106,107

Slightly older and less diverse, Rutherford deviates from the 

state profile in terms of economic performance (see 

Table 7-12). In figures released in June 2015, Rutherford had 

the ninth highest unemployment rate among North Carolina’s 

100 counties. This downturn in employment is mirrored in 

Rutherford County’s ARC economic status designation. The 

county moved from “at risk” at the beginning and end of the 

broadband Internet expansion project to “distressed” in the 

most recent assessment. 

Table 7-12. Rutherford County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography 

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty, %

Rutherford County −1.8 19.0 81.6 19,551 8.9 21.5

North Carolina 4.3 14.3 84.9 25,284 6.4 17.5

United States 3.3 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Rutherford County is proactively working to make the transition 

from a manufacturing-dependent economy, traditionally 

textiles, to an information-enabled economy. According to 

regional leaders, Rutherford County is working collaboratively 

with neighboring Polk County through e-Polk, a nonprofit 

 

106 Center for Regional Competitiveness. 2012. “A Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy for the Isothermal Planning 

Region.” Accessed at 

http://clevelandcc.edu/uploads/information/planning/CEDS.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

107 Rutherford County Economic Development Strategic Plan. 2013. 

Accessed at 

http://rutherfordncedc.com/assets/files/Strategic%20Plan/Econ%2

0Dev%20Strategic%20Plan%20final%20corrected%206-21-

13%20(2).pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-39 

created to address the lack of adequate broadband Internet 

services in the area, Rutherford County has made information 

technology infrastructure a linchpin of its economic 

development strategy. 

Project Synopsis 

In 2007, Rutherford County provided $76,680 to match an ARC 

grant of $178,920 to augment an existing multiphase fiber 

network project to enhance broadband Internet availability to 

schools and public safety centers. The Golden LEAF Foundation 

provided the bulk of the funds for the existing network, while 

ARC funds successfully piggybacked on the fiber network to 

establish the wireless redundancy that is required for secure 

public safety applications. A wireless network of equipment 

including towers, switches, routers, antennas, and other 

electronic equipment was deployed, with the primary benefit 

going to supporting emergency 911 responders, police, and fire 

fighters. Wireless transmitters connecting through nine new 

towers provided faster, secure, and redundant first responder 

communications, including improved connections with state and 

federal agencies and extension of service to isolated areas. 

When completed in 2009, this project increased the number of 

wireless access points to include all 17 fire departments in 

Rutherford County. This network supports transmission of GIS 

information for emergency service calls and creates a platform 

for future builds for traffic monitoring and surveillance of highcrime areas. 

Site Visit Findings 

The ARC-funded wireless network project was executed on time 

and under budget; it was fully deployed and active in June 

2009. The ARC-funded network successfully piggybacked on 

existing fiber optic networks to improve communications for 

public safety. This project was also an important piece of a 

larger two-county planning and deployment effort to enhance 

Internet connectivity in the region. 

The story behind this network is one of strategic vision, 

regional collaboration, and transformation. Seeded by planning 

grants from North Carolina’s Rural Internet Access Authority 

(subsequently renamed the e-NC Authority), Rutherford and 

Polk Counties developed strategic e-community action plans 

that galvanized grassroots efforts to improve broadband 

Internet access and utilization. Follow-on support from the eThe ARC-funded network 

successfully piggybacked 

on existing fiber optic 

networks to improve 

communications for 

public safety. This project 

was also an important 

piece of a larger twocounty planning and 

deployment effort to 

enhance Internet 

connectivity in the region.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-40

NC Authority helped both counties implement the plan to create 

a local nonprofit, e-Polk that was charged with delivering 

“affordable, reliable connectivity and services for our region” 

with the goal to ... “enhance economic development, improve 

the quality of life, and create a broad platform of innovation 

enabling underserved areas.”108 The plan also called for the 

creation of Foothills Connect Business and Technology Center to 

“encourage, develop and support entrepreneurship through the 

provision of broadband technology.”109

The region’s efforts in developing and using broadband Internet 

platforms evolved in 2007 when Foothills Connect Business and 

Technology Center secured a $1.44 million grant from Golden 

LEAF Foundation. With this, Foothills Connect was able to 

complete an existing fiber network to county schools and fire 

departments to create and emergency services fiber network. 

The net effect added 38 miles of fiber to public networks in 

Rutherford County that connected 17 fire departments and 2 

emergency medical services (EMS) stations. 

Within this greater context of broadband Internet investment in 

the region, funding from ARC complemented the EMS fiber 

buildout by providing resources for a secure wireless EMS 

network over the county’s fiber. Together the grants provide 

the fiber and wireless capacity needed for secure and 

redundant communications in the county. 

All public safety traffic on this network communicates on secure 

radio frequency channels that are dedicated to emergency 

services; the system also supports lower frequency channels for 

communications of other community anchor institutions. The 

EMS now communicates more efficiently throughout the rural 

areas of the county, and the 911 center now tracks all 

emergency response vehicles for both safety and public 

responsiveness. The EMS network positions the county to be 

responsive to requirements and opportunities that may arise as 

the NTIA’s FirstNet initiative develops. 

The wireless network funded by ARC was pivotal to optimizing 

the value of the fiber buildout by providing the redundant 

wireless infrastructure needed by community anchor 

 

108 PANGAEA. No date. “Mission.” Accessed at http://www.epolk.org/mission/ on August 1, 2015. 

109 Foothills Connect Business and Technology Center. No date. 

Accessed at http://www.foothillsconnect.com/ on August 1, 2015. 

The wireless network 

funded by ARC was 

pivotal to optimizing the 

value of the fiber buildout 

by providing the 

redundant wireless 

infrastructure needed by 

community anchor 

institutions, especially for 

public safety.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-41 

institutions, especially for public safety. It also is vital to 

creating viable options for last-mile buildout to underserved 

areas and to supporting business recruitment, workforce 

training, and educational initiatives that depend on competitive 

broadband Internet access. As a former county IT Director 

stated, “Next time you are driving down the road and look up to 

see all of those wires hanging from pole-to-pole, just 

remember, those cables are changing the way our county lives 

and it does mean progress.”

Lessons Learned 

Through forward-focused leadership, Rutherford County is 

transforming itself into a self-described “place where the world 

connects.” This still-unfolding story offers many insights for 

communities confronting challenging economic conditions. 

 Leveraging and extending existing infrastructure can be 

an efficient means of providing faster, more reliable 

communications capabilities to the public sector: 

Counties that want to be successful in moving the 

needle on their economic dashboard have to be involved 

in advancing telecommunications in a way that builds on 

existing infrastructure. This grant leveraged ARC funding 

to take an existing fiber optic network to the next level 

of functionality for public safety purposes. 

 Effective collaboration enables the realization of a 

shared vision: Threats facing the county were politically 

agnostic, and everyone was affected by the limited 

economic prospects of the county. Collaborative leaders 

worked together on planning committees and 

commissions to solve their connectivity problems and 

work toward a shared vison. 

 Grassroots involvement is essential to enhanced regional 

broadband Internet connectivity: Rutherford and its 

partner Polk County could not have bootstrapped the 

development of their network without active grassroots 

support. Inclusiveness was a mandate for early ecommunity planning meetings that sought to raise 

awareness of the need for broadband Internet and 

gather citizen input as part of the planning process. 

“Next time you are 

driving down the road 

and look up to see all of 

those wires hanging from 

pole-to-pole, just 

remember, those cables 

are changing the way our 

county lives and it does 

mean progress.”

Former Rutherford 

county IT Director

Inclusiveness was a 

mandate for early ecommunity planning 

meetings that sought to 

raise awareness of the 

need for broadband 

Internet and gather

citizen input as part of the 

planning process.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-42

7.2.10 Youngstown Ohio Works and Riverbend Industrial Park 

Broadband Internet Access 

Community Profile 

Youngstown is Ohio’s ninth largest city with a population of 

565,773, down 60 percent since 1960110 with the collapse of 

the industrial economy. Serious challenges persist in 

Youngstown and the wider region where poverty rates are more 

than double state and national averages and per capita income 

is just over half of the national average (see Table 7-13).

Table 7-13. Mahoning County/City of Youngstown, Ohio, Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty

Mahoning County −2.7 15.8 80.4 14,876 7.1 36.4

Ohio 0.3 14.1 88.5 26,046 5.9 15.8

United States 2.5 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Despite the indicators of economic underperformance, 

Youngstown, Ohio, has come a long way from the devastation 

caused by the collapse of the steel industry and 

deindustrialization of the Rust Belt. New highly innovated 

initiatives, such as the siting of the pilot institute for a national 

advanced manufacturing initiative in Youngstown, are helping 

build momentum for revitalizing the economy.111 The expanding 

Youngstown Business Incubator, in the heart of downtown, was 

ranked as the number one university-associated business 

 

110 U.S. Census. State and County QuickFacts. “Population.” Accessed 

at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/3988000.html on 

August 1, 2015. 

111 Johnson, Dave. August 23, 2012. “Ohio 3-D Printing Manufacturing 

Hub Initiative.” Our Future. Accessed at 

https://ourfuture.org/20120823/ohio-3d-printing-manufacturinghub-initiative on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-43 

incubator in the world by the Swedish University Business 

Incubator Index.112 The city aims to build on these initiatives to 

diversify its economy to renew its economic base. 

Project Synopsis 

In 2010, ARC awarded $91,318 to the City Government of 

Youngstown Ohio with an equivalent match of local funds to 

upgrade broadband Internet connections to two industrial 

parks. Businesses located in these parks complained of 

insufficient bandwidth for their operations. At the time of the 

grant request, 32 businesses were located in the two industrial 

parks. Leaders we spoke with were concerned that without the 

addition of gigabyte fiber access in the business parks, 

Youngstown would lose many of the existing 735 jobs located in 

the park. 

Site Visit Findings 

The site visit interview was conducted with the Director of the 

Department of Community Planning and Economic 

Development and the Chief Executive Officer of the company 

that had assisted in the planning and deployment of the fiber 

network. According to these local leaders, companies that 

existed within the park had the opportunity to switch to the 

fiber network being built with grant funds when their current 

ISP contracts ended. Interviewees noted that the project helped 

retain the 735 jobs that were in the park because gigabit fiber 

was essential to the operations of these businesses. In addition, 

interviewees reported that other businesses were interested in 

coming into the park to operate because of the presence of 

gigabit fiber and that 105 jobs had been created. 

Lessons Learned 

The Riverbend Industrial Park Broadband Access grant was well 

planned and coordinated. It resulted from the collaborative 

process that involved all parties involved in the project. Lessons 

learned from this case include: 

 Good planning is essential to successful broadband 

Internet infrastructure deployment: The site visit made 

clear that appropriate planning was at the heart of this 

 

112 First Energy. 2015. “Youngstown Business Incubator Earns 

Recognition.” Accessed at 

https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/fecorp/economicdevelop

ment/resource_room/features/YBI-earns-recognition.html on 

August 1, 2015. 

Interviewees noted that 

the project helped retain 

the 735 jobs that were in 

the park because gigabit 

fiber was essential to the 

operations of these 

businesses. In addition,

interviewees reported that 

other businesses were 

interested in coming into 

the park to operate

because of the presence 

of gigabit fiber and that

105 jobs had been

created.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-44

project’s success. The company that managed the 

project for the city was knowledgeable in discussing the 

buildout and also had the knowledge of the 

telecommunications industry needed to plan for 

deployment and the subsequent start-up connections 

with businesses. 

 Coordination and cooperation are critical to avoiding 

delays when multiple partners are involved: Many 

factors can delay fiber deployment, such as city 

equipment procurement processes and the construction 

necessary to house the fiber system electronics. The 

fiber deployment at the Riverbend Industrial Park, 

however, was facilitated by cooperation between city 

authorities and an established company during the 

deployment of fiber. Fiber in Youngstown was mostly 

aerial, and some fiber had to be run through conduits 

under the river close to the business park. Because of 

effective coordination, the city and its contractors 

worked efficiently to complete each step of the 

deployment process. 

7.2.11 SEDA Council of Governments (COG) Promoting 

Technology Adoption for Progress (PTAP) 

Community Profile 

SEDA-COG serves 11 central Pennsylvania counties. Sparsely 

populated but with great land mass, the region is home to more 

than 9,000 farms and rich in natural resources including timber, 

minerals, and energy.113 The counties that comprise the SEDA 

region vary widely in their demographic and economic profiles 

(see Table 7-14). The region is also home to Penn State 

University and a major regional medical complex. 

The region’s economic landscape is changing. Since the 

recession began in 2008, manufacturing fell from 23 percent of 

employment in 2004 to 16.5 percent in 2015. The highest 

percentage of jobs are in the health sector (20 percent), 

followed by manufacturing and retail (15 percent) and food and 

accommodations (11 percent).114

 

113 SEDA Council of Governments. 2015. “SEDA-COG At a Glance.” 

Accessed at http://www.sedacog.org/PDF%20Library/At%20a%20Glance.pdf on August 1, 2015.

114 SEDA-Council of Governments. June 2015. “Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy Five Year Update.” Accessed at 

http://www.seda-cog.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/5-

Year%202015%20CEDS%20FINAL.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-45 

Table 7-14. SEDA-COG County Democratic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty

Centre County 3.1 12.3 92.7 25,545 4.7 20.5

Clinton County 1.3 17 86.2 21,875 7.5 16.1

Columbia County −0.3 17 88.0 23,681 6.4 16.6

Juniata County 0.6 19.5 82.9 21,268 5.5 11.8

Lycoming County 0.3 17.2 87.6 22,987 6.1 14.2

Mifflin County −0.3 20.0 81.5 20,794 6.4 15.3

Montour County 2.0 19.4 89.5 29,600 4.9 10.0

North-Cumberland County −0.6 19.4 85.3 22,478 6.5 14.2

Perry County −0.7 15.3 86.7 26,046 5.4 9.7

Snyder County 1.6 16.5 82.6 23,088 5.4 11.9

Union County −0.2 15.8 84.7 22,259 5.4 12.3

Pennsylvania 0.7 16.4 88.7 28,502 5.7 13.3

United States 2.5 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

The region’s population is also aging. The population of people 

over 65 years of age is 11.8 percent higher than the state of 

Pennsylvania. Broadband Internet technology that is sufficient 

for living, taking care of personal business, and monitoring 

health at home via telehealth will be an asset in addressing 

needs of the aging population in the region. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-46

Project Synopsis 

In 2003, Pennsylvania lacked a coordinated strategy for 

broadband Internet development and adoption, leaving regions 

to address inadequate access to broadband Internet on their 

own. As indicated by SEDA staff, this was seen as a major 

impediment to their economic, educational, and cultural future. 

SEDA staff also noted that citizens and businesses in their 

region did not understand the technological requirements 

needed to support broadband Internet development or the 

importance of broadband Internet for the area’s long-term 

growth and sustainability. 

In 2004, ARC funded SEDA to develop a technical assistance 

team to help regional businesses and organizations learn about 

broadband Internet adoption. The ARC grant underwrote travel, 

equipment acquisition, supplies, contracts, and other services 

and provided some compensation assistance for project 

personnel. The grant enabled five additional staff to provide 

technical assistance to businesses and organizations throughout 

the region. 

Site Visit Findings 

Interviewees stated that prior to the grant, an assessment of 

local businesses showed that small companies in the region 

were not planning for technology changes such as website 

development. Programs implemented through this grant 

provided training that improved the web presence of businesses 

in the region. 

With support from the ARC grant, technical assistance teams 

helped regional businesses and organizations learn about 

broadband Internet and website development. Students from 

area universities were recruited to work alongside SEDA staff to 

build websites for businesses and government organizations in 

the region. Students also assisted SEDA in Internet skills 

development programs for citizens and businesses in central 

Pennsylvania. To address the need for cost-effective web 

hosting, SEDA initiated a web hosting service that is still in 

operation today. 

In addition to developing a web presence for businesses and 

organizations in the region, the grant allowed these counties to 

begin to interact with citizens, businesses, and other 

institutions that were now using the Internet. 

In 2003, Pennsylvania 

lacked a coordinated 

strategy for broadband 

Internet development and 

adoption, leaving regions 

to address inadequate 

access to broadband 

Internet on their own. As 

indicated by SEDA staff, 

this was seen as a major 

impediment to their 

economic, educational, 

and cultural future.

In addition to developing 

a web presence for 

businesses and 

organizations in the 

region, the grant allowed 

these counties to begin to 

interact with citizens, 

businesses, and other 

institutions that were now 

using the Internet.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-47 

SEDA heavily engaged students in this work to thwart concerns 

resulting from a survey indicating young people planned to 

leave the region to find employment. SEDA incorporated 

students in broadband Internet outreach efforts as a means to 

encourage them to become invested in the local community 

and aware of potential opportunities. 

SEDA obtained two grants from ARC: the first spanned 2004 to 

2006 and the second from 2005 to 2007. Matching funds for 

the program provided by SEDA were split between cash and inkind contributions. Unfortunately, shortly after the second 

grant’s close, the economy began to worsen and funding for 

many SEDA programs dwindled, resulting in the reduction of 

technical assistance staff. Despite these funding challenges, 

SEDA continues to host the websites initiated by the ARC grant. 

Interviewees are uncertain if these services can continue into 

the future. It is notable, however, that the 2015 SEDA 

Comprehensive Economic Development Report lists broadband 

Internet as a continuing major goal.115

Lessons Learned 

These projects have enabled its leaders to gain knowledge and 

insight into digital deployment, literacy, and adoption and use 

and its impact on economic issues. The site visit discussions 

with the SEDA-COG team elicited the following lessons: 

 Public–private partnerships are effective in advancing 

technology adoption: Public–private partnerships can be 

effective in advancing the adoption and application of 

broadband Internet in rural areas. This grant 

demonstrated how a regional council of government 

working closely with universities, businesses, and other 

organizations was able to increase the use of broadband 

Internet in the community through website 

development. 

 Technical assistance elevates the ability to improve 

broadband Internet access and utilization: Most local 

regions still do not have the bandwidth that the FCC now 

determines is sufficient for living, working, running a 

business, and learning in today’s world—25 Mbps down 

and 3 Mbps up.116 This grant was a successful example 

of how targeted broadband Internet technical assistance 

 

115 Ibid. 

116 Federal Communications Commission. 2015. “FCC Finds U.S. 

Broadband Deployment Not Keeping Pace.” Accessed at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331760A1.pdf
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-48

can be provided through regional institutions to enhance 

digital literacy based on the specific needs of the 

community. 

 Community needs evolve over time: At the time of the 

grant, local business and organizations needed help 

understanding the benefits of broadband Internet and 

website development. As the socioeconomic 

characteristics of the region change with time, the 

region can reassess how to best leverage broadband 

Internet to meet new needs. 

7.2.12 Cambria Connected 

Community Profile 

Cambria County is part of the six-county Southern Alleghany 

Region in south central Pennsylvania. Cambria has worked to 

diversify an economy that remains challenged by outmigration,117 a growing share of the population over the age of 

65, and high unemployment (see Table 7-15).

Table 7-15. Cambria County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty

Cambria County −4.1 19.7 88.9 22,659 7.1 14.9

Pennsylvania 4.2 16.4 88.7 28,502 5.8 13.4

United States 2.5 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

 

117 Pennsylvania State Data Center. 2013 “Research Brief.” Accessed 

at 

https://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/sdc/pasdc_files/researchbriefs/2012_Co

unty_Estimates_RB.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-49 

Project Synopsis 

In 2008, Cambria County received a grant of $225,000 from 

ARC with a local match of $267,180 to underwrite the 

acquisition of WiMAX and Wi-Fi wireless equipment. The 

wireless project was part of Cambria Connected, a much larger 

county-wide high-speed broadband Internet infrastructure 

effort with total costs of $9.5 million and funded by multiple 

sources. ARC’s investment amounted to 2.4 percent of the total 

cost of the Cambria Connected project. Although ARC provided 

a small portion of the total funding, a local leader noted that 

ARC was an important partner in the larger project. 

According to local press releases, the Cambria Connected 

network “would deliver services including land mobile radio with 

simulcast backhaul, automatic meter reading, business and 

residential broadband Internet, video surveillance, high speed 

mobility, SCADA, metro-LAN services and community Wi-Fi. It 

would support a public safety network with enhanced voice 

communications and be the first network in Pennsylvania 

capable of supporting high-speed mobile data applications, 

including live streaming video and computer-aided dispatch.”

118

The network was designed to benefit the economic, cultural, 

and educational development of the Cambria County 

community. Data from ARC records indicate that 711 

businesses were projected to benefit, as well as more than 

5,500 other participants.119 Inconsistent reports make it difficult 

to confirm whether the network met its numerical numbers for 

service to citizens and businesses. 

Site Visit Findings 

The City of Johnstown and all of Cambria County had decided to 

develop a $9.5 million network to provide connectivity to the 

Internet through a county-wide area network to serve 

residential and commercial customers as well as provide 

support for police and fire rescue services, E-911, government, 

and educational institutions and libraries. Applications such as 

distance learning and telemedicine would be available to 

network subscribers. Cambria County modeled the network 

 

118Business Wire. April 2013. “Cambria Connected Project Overview.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20070508006454/en/Ca

mbria-Connected-Project-Overview#.VglYwvlVhHw on August 1, 

2015.

119 ARC Grant Database (ARC.net) 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-50

after Allconet, a wireless Internet network developed for 

Alleghany County, Maryland.120

Once completed, Cambria Connected won awards in 2009 from 

the American Public Safety Communications Officers, the 

Pennsylvania Economic Development Council, and the State of 

Pennsylvania Governor’s Award for Local Government 

Excellence.121 According to the Director of the Cambria 

Emergency Services at the time, the system was constructed 

under budget. Interviewees claim that broadband Internet 

service rates were cut by about one-fourth for the local college 

compared with their previous rates. The network appears to 

have been directly responsible for expansion of at least one 

small business start-up, the In the Styx Internet business. In 

the Styx was able to gain bulk pricing from Cambria Connected, 

enabling them to cut their cost of business substantially and 

offer lower prices to their customers. Furthermore, Digital 

Razor, a business from another state, came in and offered 

lower rates for data storage.122

By most measures, the interviewees considered the project a 

success.123 Unfortunately, the project became tangled up in 

discussions about whether a county government should own its 

own Internet network and offer services beyond the boundary 

of municipal and county government. After the 2012 elections, 

new county commissioners decided to phase out the expanded 

service of Cambria Connected, leading ultimately to the 

restriction of the network to just the government sector. 

Services to citizens and businesses ceased. 

After a short period of time to allow residents and businesses to 

transition to another Internet network, Cambria Connected 

became a network connecting only fire, emergency services, 

 

120 Allconet. No date. Homepage. Accessed at www.allconet.org on 

August 1, 2015. 

121 Zoominfo. “Mr. Brian P. Feist.” Accessed at 

www.zoominfo.com/p/Brian-Feist/901771878 on August 1, 2015.

122 Goldman, Alex. June 2008. “Two ISPs on Cambria Connected: In 

The Stix and Digital Razor.” Wi-Fi Planet. Accessed at 

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3753881/ on 

August 1, 2015. 

123 GovTech.com. 2008. “Cambria County, PA, Multi-Use Wireless 

Network Goes Live.” Accessed at http://www.govtech.com/publicsafety/Cambria-County-Pa-Multi-Use.html on August 1, 2015. 

Interviewees claim that 

broadband Internet 

service rates were cut by 

about one-fourth for the 

local college compared 

with their previous rates.

The network appears to 

have been directly 

responsible for expansion 

of at least one small 

business start-up, the In 

the Styx Internet business.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-51 

police services, first responders, and other typical county 

government services by 2013. 

Interviews with personnel from the Information Technology 

group of Cambria County government shared that the network 

for government services is currently operating on the wireless 

network, known as Cambria Connected, but discussions are 

underway about the possibility of purchasing fiber-based 

Internet services that can provide scalability, reliability, and 

lower cost of operations. 

Discussions with project principals and county officials revealed 

that the project had the following lasting benefits: 

 Cambria County citizens, businesses, and governments 

collaborated to fund, develop, and successfully deploy a 

county-wide broadband Internet network to serve 

citizens, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and 

government operations. 

 Six years of operations of a new communications 

network provided a profound learning experience for 

government employees and elected officials. They 

learned how to bill for service, maintain the network, 

and transpose the network operation from serving the 

entire community to a reduced footprint that only serves 

government operations. 

Lessons Learned 

Cambria Connected was envisioned and successfully 

implemented as a county-wide network offering service to all 

public and private members of the community. That the 

network now operates in a much-restricted government zone 

does not negate the real benefits the project imparted to 

Cambria County or the lessons learned from the experience, 

such as the following: 

 ARC seed funding can initiate critical learning curves. 

The Cambria Connected project gave the county the 

opportunity to learn to operate within an Internet-driven 

society and began the conversation with their citizens 

and businesses, as well as their government operations, 

about what these shifts might mean for them. 

 County information technology personnel learned to 

effectively transition the nongovernmental portion of the 

network off their network: The change to reduce the 

network’s use required staff to work with all commercial 

and nonprofit providers and resulted in an unanticipated 

The Cambria Connected 

project gave the county 

the opportunity to learn 

to operate within an 

Internet-driven society 

and began the 

conversation with their 

citizens and businesses,

as well as their 

government operations,

about what these shifts

might mean for them.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-52

lesson learned that gave staff technical and professional 

skills from the experience of downsizing. 

 Local government can be a lead provider for broadband 

Internet infrastructure: Organizations that provide 

funding for broadband Internet infrastructure projects 

can learn much from studying innovative start-ups and 

public–private partnerships created by local 

governments to bring the required broadband Internet 

services to their regions. Cambria Connected’s 

experience provides useful insights to guide planning 

actions for local governments that wish to deploy their 

own broadband Internet networks. 

7.2.13 Tri-County Telecommunications Master Planning 

Initiative and Tri-County Technology College Technology 

Infrastructure: Pendleton Campus 

Community Profile 

Six counties comprise western SC Appalachian Council of 

Governments (ACOG)—Anderson, Cherokee, Greenville, 

Oconee, Pickens, and Spartanburg.124 United by geography and 

the dominance of the textile industry in the past, the region has 

diversified. Greenville and Spartanburg Counties became more 

urban and their manufacturing profile became more 

mechanical, with a focus in the automotive, aviation, and 

plastics sectors. Other counties in the region remain a mix of 

rural and urban, with tourism a dominant sector in parts of all 

counties.125 Strong collaborative regional planning capacity, 

housed in SC ACOG and other organizations, serves as a 

foundation for cooperation. A cooperative local culture helps 

communities better respond to emergent opportunities, a factor 

cited in an earlier ARC examination of factors contributing to 

successful economic diversification.126

These counties are also well served by Clemson University 

(CU), located in Anderson County. This region can leverage the 

 

124 SC Appalachian Council of Governments. No date. Accessed at 

http://www.scacog.org/ on August 1, 2015. 

125 SC Appalachian Council of Governments. 2014. “CED Update 2-14: 

An Outstanding Year for Target Industry and Global 

Competitiveness.” Accessed at 

http://www.scacog.org/Portals/9/2014%20SCACOG%20CEDS%20U

PDATE.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

126 Appalachian Regional Commissions. December 2014. Economic 

Diversity in Appalachia: Case Studies in Economic Development. 

Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/EconomicDiversityinAp

palachiaCompilationofAllReports.pdf on July 31, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-53 

presence of CU to better provide education and workforce 

training using high-speed broadband Internet. For example, in

2011, CU created the Center for Workforce Development to 

provide virtual and distance learning to create a skilled 

workforce for the region’s burgeoning automotive and aviation 

industries.127,128

Sharing low costs and an advantageous location midway 

between Atlanta and Charlotte and well served by road, rail, 

and air transportation, SC ACOG counties have seen economic 

progress over the past two decades. 129 And, although the three 

counties (Anderson, Oconee, Pickens) that were served by the 

evaluated grants still underperform the state and region on key 

economic and demographic indicators (see Table 7-16), the 

differences are smaller than many of the other case study 

profiles in this section. 

Project Synopsis 

This project comprised two grants. The first grant funded a 

master plan that was followed by a second grant to fund 

equipment for the Tri-County Technical College to enhance 

education and training. We describe both. 

 

127 Clemson University College of Engineering and Science. 2011. 

“Request to SC Commission on Higher Education for Creation of 

New Center on Workforce Development.” Accessed at 

http://www.che.sc.gov/che_docs/academicaffairs/acap/acap-01-19-

2012/2k.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

128 Clemson University Center for Workforce Development. Accessed at 

http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/cucwd on August 1, 

2015.

129 Upstate Alliance. Accessed at 

http://www.upstatealliance.com/about-upstate/upstate-sc-overview

on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-54

Table 7-16. Anderson, Oconee, and Pickens Counties’ Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty

Anderson County 3.0 16.7 81.7 22,081 6.3 16.8

Oconee County 1.2 21.0 83.1 23,904 6.8 19.1

Pickens County 1.0 14.9 82.2 21,182 6.7 18.9

South Carolina 4.5 15.2 84.5 23,943 6.3 18.1

United States 3.3 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Tri-County Telecommunications Master Planning Initiative: At 

the request of Anderson, Oconee, and Pickens Counties, ACOG 

in 2007 obtained $65,000 from ARC, with a local match of 

$66,000, to conduct a strategic telecommunications needs 

assessment and business plan. ARC funds underwrote the costs 

of ACOG personnel and consultants. The well-received plan 

delivered detailed broadband Internet inventories, needs 

analysis, recommended services, and recommendations for 

future deployment of more high-speed broadband Internet in 

the three-county region. This strategic plan laid the groundwork 

for Oconee County to secure $9.6 million in follow-on funding 

from NTIA’s Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program in 

2009. This strategic plan laid the groundwork for Oconee 

County to secure $9.6 million in follow-on funding from NTIA’s

Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program in 2009. 

This strategic plan laid 

the groundwork for 

Oconee County to secure 

$9.6 million in follow-on 

funding from NTIA’s

Broadband Technologies 

Opportunity Program in 

2009.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-55 

Tri-County Technology College Infrastructure: The planning 

grant described above, along with concurrent planning efforts 

for the three-county strategic telecommunications plans, 

informed the community about equipment upgrades needed to 

improve connectivity at the Pendleton Campus of Tri-County 

Technical College, which also services satellite locations in 

Oconee and Pickens Counties. In 2007, ARC provided 

$100,401, matched by $191,503 in local funds, for these 

upgrades. Specific investments included the installation of new 

wireline services and switching equipment that doubled 

bandwidth from 10 Mbps to 20 Mbps in 48 classrooms, 

technical closets, and computer labs across the campus. 

Faculty, administrators, and more than 1,900 students 

benefited from improved Internet service. These strengthened 

connections support continuous access to more than 100 online 

courses spanning approximately 60 fields of study. Faculty, 

administrators, and more than 1,900 students benefited from 

improved Internet service. These strengthened connections 

support continuous access to more than 100 online courses 

spanning approximately 60 fields of study. 

Site Visit Findings 

The region is benefitting from virtual instruction as the 

community college shifts to an ever-larger share of online 

classes. High-quality broadband Internet infrastructure 

facilitates the capacity of a region to respond to and benefit 

from the transition from classroom to virtual learning. 

If a primary metric of successful planning involves the degree 

to which findings are used and recommendations are 

implemented to good effect, then the Tri-County 

Telecommunications Master Planning Initiative experienced 

impressive results. Interviewees said the plan “convened a 

steering committee that got the right people on the same page 

to develop a common vision and establish the framework for 

action.” In the immediate term, the plan attracted support for 

the significant local match needed to fund the school’s 

infrastructure upgrades. 

Faculty, administrators, 

and more than 1,900 

students benefited from 

improved Internet 

service. These 

strengthened connections 

support continuous 

access to more than 100 

online courses spanning 

approximately 60 fields of 

study.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-56

A compelling case arguing for the ongoing value and impact of 

the planning initiative involves Oconee County, the smallest 

and most rural of the counties and the strongest advocate of 

the need for a regional approach for telecommunications 

planning. The 2007 plan documented broadband Internet 

service in Oconee as being relatively expensive, unreliable, or 

unavailable at all in some communities. In 2010, Oconee 

County leveraged this information with a $9.6 million award 

from NTIA’s Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program to 

install the broadband Internet infrastructure needed to make it 

a stronger contributor to regional development. 

The project, Oconee FOCUS (Fiber Optics Creating Unified 

Solutions), is a public–private partnership that has built a fiberoptic network consisting of linked concentric networks providing 

high-speed service to rural parts of the county and connections 

to very-high-speed transport networks across the state and 

country. The construction of this 252-mile fiber network, 

providing broadband Internet speeds of up to 10 Gbps, 

improves Oconee County’s attractiveness to new and existing 

employers and empowers more efficient operations at up to 

140 community anchor institutions, 70 of which were connected 

as of June 2013. Six ISPs are authorized to provide last-mile 

services to businesses and homes over this network. Oconee 

FOCUS increased connectivity at the county’s 20 public schools 

from 10 Mbps to 1 Gbps.130

Lessons Learned 

The lessons learned from these two interrelated projects are 

concise but speak volumes to the fact that well-executed, 

modest planning grants can have broad and lasting impacts: 

 Proactive regional planning agencies, especially in the 

technology arena, can have substantial impact: The 

same can be said of good regional planning groups that 

share information, facilitate collaboration, and leverage 

investments. In this case, a modest planning grant 

provided the mortar for enhancements at a community 

college that will support stronger online instruction 

throughout the region and support one of the region’s 

 

130 Broadband USA Connecting America’s Communities. No date. 

“County of Oconee.” Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/grantee/county-of-Oconee. And Oconee 

FOCUS Factsheet. Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/grantees/oconee_focus.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

The construction of this 

252-mile fiber network, 

providing broadband 

Internet speeds of up to 

10 Gbps, improves 

Oconee County’s 

attractiveness to new 

and existing employers 

and empowers more 

efficient operations at up 

to 140 community 

anchor institutions, 70 of 

which were connected as 

of June 2013. Six ISPs 

are authorized to 

provide last-mile 

services to businesses 

and homes over this 

network. Oconee 

FOCUS increased 

connectivity at the 

county’s 20 public 

schools from 10 Mbps to 

1 Gbps.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-57 

most poorly connected counties to build out its 

broadband Internet infrastructure, becoming part of the 

rising tide that is lifting all boats in the region. 

7.2.14 Regional Economic Development GIS Upgrade 

Community Profile 

The Southeast Tennessee Development Division (SETDD) is a 

special purpose unit of government created by executive order 

and comprising county and municipal governments in 

southeastern Tennessee and northwestern Georgia.131 Included 

are Bledsoe, Bradley, Grundy, Hamilton, McMinn, Marion, 

Meigs, Polk, Rhea, and Sequatchie Counties in Tennessee and 

Catoosa, Dade, and Walker Counties in Georgia. Ten additional 

contiguous counties in Georgia and North Carolina join the 

SETDD counties in the cross-border Tri-State Workforce 

Alliance132 and in the Southeast Industrial Alliance.133

Beyond shared geography, culture, and economy, this unusual 

level of shared vision and collaboration evidences the 

recognition that the best path to progress lies in leveraging 

resources to address common challenges and opportunities. 

This project demonstrates that even relatively small-scale 

investments in capacity, such as this GIS upgrade project, can 

amplify community impacts. Even relatively small-scale 

investments in capacity, such as this GIS upgrade project, can 

amplify community impacts. 

With a characterization common to many Appalachian counties, 

the SETDD region underperforms state and national averages 

with relatively lower educational attainment, higher 

unemployment, lower median income, and older median age. 

However, total minority population in all but Hamilton County is 

lower than 7 percent, and the population in the region is 

growing, with only Marion County experiencing net 

outmigration and half of the counties growing at rates 

exceeding those of the United States and Tennessee (see 

Table 7-17).

 

131 Southeast Tennessee Development District. Accessed at 

http://www.sedev.org/www on August 1, 2015. 

132Tri-State Regional Workforce Alliance. Accessed at 

http://nwgrc.org/tristateregionalworkforcealliance/ on August 1, 

2015. 

133 Southeast Tennessee Development District. Accessed at 

http://www.sedev.org/www on August 1, 2015. 

Even relatively smallscale investments in 

capacity, such as this GIS 

upgrade project, can 

amplify community 

impacts.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-58

Table 7-17. SETDD Counties’ Economic and Demographic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty

Bledsoe County 7.1 17.6 75.6 15,747 9.6 22.4

Bradley County 2.9 15.4 82.4 21,649 6.9 19.8

Grundy County −1.8 20.0 70.5 15,683 10.5 29.7

Hamilton County 3.7 15.6 86.3 27,229 6.8 16.6

Marion County 0.4 17.7 76.1 21,399 8.3 18.2

McMinn County 0.2 18.4 80.2 19,744 8.1 18.3

Meigs County −0.9 19.0 74.1 19,403 9.0 20.7

Polk County −1.0 18.6 77.4 20,274 8.2 17.3

Rhea County 2.2 17.1 76.9 18,952 9.2 22.6

Sequatchie County 3.6 18.4 80.5 20,899 7.9 17.4

Tennessee 2.4 14.7 84.4 24,409 7.1 17.6

United States 3.3 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

At the time of this award (2009), six SETDD counties were 

designated “transitional,” three “at risk,” and only one 

“distressed.” Despite concerted efforts in individual counties 

and across the region, the situation appears to have 

deteriorated: none of the counties’ statuses have advanced: 

four are now “transitional,” three are “at risk” and three are 

considered “distressed.” And, although success in attracting 

retirees and tourists to the region contributes to the economy, 

maintaining sustainable high-wage manufacturing jobs remains 

the economic development gold standard.134 SETDD has a 

 

134 Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. 

No date. “Regional Strategic Plan.” Accessed at 

http://issuu.com/setdd/docs/jobs4tn_report?e=4030331/6344696

on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-59 

strong manufacturing base to build on and has been focused on 

growing its auto manufacturing and energy clusters to expand 

on the major appliance and textile sectors that have 

dominated. Strong information technology infrastructure in 

parts of SETDD is seen as a magnet that can boost the region’s 

innovation and entrepreneurial capacity, although parts of Polk 

County and other more rural counties in the region remain 

underserved.135

Project Synopsis 

In 2009, SETDD matched an award of $11,055 from ARC to 

purchase modern GIS software and GPS hardware for use in 

developing geospatial data compliant with the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee standards. SETDD assists a 10-

county region with regional planning, transportation, and 

infrastructure development. Equipment purchased included a 

handheld GPS receiver, ARCView 9.3 GIS software, and two 

additional software modules to allow the determination of leastcost routes and to perform drive-time analysis, two critical 

functions for industries employing just-in-time delivery 

processes that are important to auto suppliers, energy 

suppliers, and other high-wage industries targeted for regional 

industrial recruitment. 

Site Visit Findings 

The GIS equipment purchased with ARC assistance in 2009 was 

used for site analysis and route planning to optimize locational 

decisions for companies being recruited or relocating to the 

region. SETDD worked with the Tennessee Valley Authority and 

economic developers to develop weighted models for potential 

industrial sites. Today, Meigs County is home to an industrial 

park. 

The GIS equipment also helped utility districts in the region 

inventory and map the location of their holdings. One 

illustrative experience involved a damaged major water tank 

that drained and caused major disruptions in service. Once the 

GPS equipment was in hand, pressure zone maps were 

 

135 Southeast Tennessee Development District. 2015. “Draft 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.” Accessed at 

http://www.sedev.org/downloads/SETDD2015DraftCEDSUpdate.pdf

on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-60

developed for the water system, enabling the utility to identify 

the source of the problem and respond more quickly. 

The real story here is not limited to the impact of a modest 

investment in one piece of equipment for use in one setting. 

Rather, it is the evolution of the adoption and utilization of GPS 

and related innovative technologies, the increasing scope and 

span of its applications for economic and community 

development, and the value of collaborative partnerships in 

using the technology to effect positive change. This story is 

evidenced in a number of ways. SETDD has been an early 

adopter of smart geospatial technologies for planning and 

development since the late 1990s, starting with a pilot project 

in Bradley County. Today, SETDD has a full-time GIS 

technician, nine fully licensed GIS employees, and five full 

software suites that work to integrate GIS into the full range of 

SETDD data, research, and services. According to economic and 

community development officials, SETDD uses a DGI Phantom 

drone to provide livestream feeds used in presentations of 

industrial sites to prospective clients and collection and 

presentation of other reconnaissance data. 

SETDD is partnering with the University of Tennessee and the 

Tennessee Emergency Management Association to reduce costs 

and increase services. For example, by marrying the mapping 

applications to other functions available on smartphones, 

governments in SETDD are able to expedite economic recovery 

from disasters. Following recent floods, governments worked 

with the Tennessee Emergency Management Association to 

email damage assessment forms in Google Docs to planners 

over Federal Emergency Management Agency smartphones and 

map damaged areas, completing disaster relief applications 

within 1 week and finalizing all paperwork within the month, 

thereby reducing total response times two- to threefold, 

according to interviewees.

As next steps, SETDD will be working to create map layers 

related to tourism and cultural heritage to support mobile 

applications that can be produced for one-third the cost of print 

copies and to put select elements of the GIS layers online for 

public access. Local leaders envision an expanded use of drones 

to establish mesh networks for emergency response situations, 

to map for energy leaks, and to test the integrity of rock faces 

near roads and highways. 

The real story here is not 

limited to the impact of a 

modest investment in one 

piece of equipment for 

use in one setting. Rather,

it is the evolution of the 

adoption and utilization 

of GPS and related 

innovative technologies, 

the increasing scope and 

span of its applications 

for economic and 

community development,

and the value of 

collaborative 

partnerships in using the 

technology to effect 

positive change.

SETDD is partnering 

with the University of 

Tennessee and the 

Tennessee Emergency 

Management Association 

to reduce costs and 

increase services. For 

example, by marrying the 

mapping applications to 

other functions available 

on smartphones,

governments in SETDD 

are able to expedite 

economic recovery from 

disasters.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-61 

SETDD views ARC as an important partner in its efforts to 

improve the economic prospects across its region. They see 

themselves as a change agent, not only in their region but as a 

model for other regions in their state, citing interest other 

regions have expressed in adopting some of their technology 

practices. Being a change agent presupposes an interest in 

experimentation that may have put SETDD ahead of the 

comfort zone of some local and state leaders, so continued 

financial support from ARC would be well received in 

southeastern Tennessee. Looking forward, regional leaders 

have identified three priorities for future ARC support: 

broadband Internet deployment, rural health, and bridges 

across the Tennessee River. 

Lessons Learned 

SETDD is a best practice example of the evolutionary 

development of comprehensive GIS capacity to support 

economic development, regional planning, and a spectrum of 

government services. As a result, a large multicounty region 

spanning portions of three states is well resourced with highvalue GIS databases to support emerging opportunities in 

public safety, health care planning and provision, disaster 

response, and economic development. Key points taken from 

this study include the following: 

 GIS is an important tool that validates and supports 

comprehensive cross-boundary planning and 

development efforts. 

 SETDD is distinguished among GIS centers examined for 

this evaluation in the depth of expertise and longevity of 

its professional staff. Unlike many similar organizations, 

SETDD would not be incapacitated by the loss of any 

one staff person. That fact underpins the confidence its 

member governments have in the timeliness and quality 

of assistance that SETDD GIS can provide. 

 Government can be entrepreneurial and innovative; with 

its early uptake and experimental application of drone 

technology, SETDD is an active agent for technology 

diffusion. Particularly impressive were the benefits 

imparted in rapid and precise documentation of flood 

damage that expedited recovery processes. 

As a result, a large 

multicounty region 

spanning portions of 

three states is well

resourced with high-value 

GIS databases to support 

emerging opportunities in 

public safety, health care 

planning and provision, 

disaster response, and 

economic development.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-62

7.2.15 Dickenson Center for Education and Research Equipment 

Community Profile 

Dickinson County, Virginia, is located in far southwestern 

Virginia on the Kentucky border. Rich natural resources, 

including coal, natural gas, timber, and minerals, have long 

dominated the employment opportunities in the region. Despite 

proactive efforts by the Dickinson County Board of Supervisors’

Industrial Development Board (DCIDB) and other local 

government leaders to transition to a more diverse and 

knowledge-based economy, almost 28 percent of the local labor 

market still works for energy extraction firms,136 and more than 

77 percent of the workforce commutes to jobs outside of the 

county.137 Declining population, low high school graduation 

rates, and lack of economic diversity are challenges that cannot 

be overcome easily or quickly, but leaders in Dickenson County 

are looking for innovative ways to change the region’s 

prospects. As noted in Table 7-18, Dickenson County faces 

population decline, a higher share of elderly residents, higher 

unemployment, lower educational attainment, and much lower 

per capita income as compared with state and national 

averages. 

In 2003, broadband Internet availability was limited and 

unaffordable for many businesses and households in Dickenson 

County. DCIDB responded proactively by implementing a plan 

to bring wireless service to the county, starting with 

connectivity to support local government services, laptops in 

police vehicles, and 911 emergency services. Subsequent 

phases orchestrated through a separate agency established by 

DCIDB extended last-mile service to businesses and 

households, making Dickinson County the first in the 

Commonwealth to offer countywide wireless services. According 

to interviewees, call centers were identified as an attractive 

economic development target, so ARC investments in 

technology and telecommunications aligned with the county’s 

strategy. 

 

136 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission. 2013. “Economic 

Development Strategy.” Accessed at 

http://www.cppdc.com/Reports/2013%20Comprehensive%20Economi

c%20Development%20Strategy.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

137 Virginal Employment Commission Labor Market Information. 2015. 

“Dickenson County Community Profile.” Accessed at 

http://virginialmi.com/report_center/community_profiles/51040000

51.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-63 

Table 7-18. Dickenson County Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty

Dickinson County −3.7 18.1 72.4 18,215 9.8 9.8

Virginia 4.1 13.4 87.5 33,493 5.4 11.3

United States 3.3 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Project Synopsis 

ARC granted $4 million in 2008 to the Industrial Development 

Authority of Dickenson County for the Virginia Coalfield 

Economic Development Authority to conduct the first of a 

three-phase project to convert a large shell building into a 

technology-enabled classroom. Additional partners (Federal 

Directed Grant, Virginia’s Tobacco Trust, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, and Columbia Phipps Foundation) provided 

$490,095 for the effort. 

Located in Dickenson County Technology Park, The Dickenson 

Center for Education and Research (DCER) was reconfigured 

into classroom space to address the traditional academic 

curriculum, the IT and technical trades, health careers, and the 

specific training needs of the mining and natural gas industries. 

DCER was to serve as an educational and workforce training 

facility that provides workforce development for new careers, 

access to higher education for graduating high school students, 

retraining opportunities for existing industries, and GED 

programs for adults. ARC funded the equipment for the facility 

$100,000 (79.9 percent) that was matched by $25,162 (20.1 

percent) with local resources. The equipment included servers, 

computers, workstations, audio/visual equipment, and 

projectors. Although first-year use statistics more than met 

expectations, subsequent years saw ever-declining success in 

achieving the original goals for education, training, and 

The Dickenson Center for 

Education and Research 

(DCER) was reconfigured 

into classroom space to 

address the traditional 

academic curriculum, the 

IT and technical trades, 

health careers, and the 

specific training needs of 

the mining and natural 

gas industries.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-64

research. The operation of DCER is expected to be turned over 

to the county government, which already uses much of the 

space as spillover for judicial and other functions. 

Site Visit Findings 

A shell building that had been vacant for more than a decade 

was the focus of a major campaign to support a growing 

technology sector. Low business costs and progressive 

broadband Internet infrastructure were the key features to 

attract related business and industry. 

DCER was envisioned as a one-stop education and training 

center that would over time also become an energy industry 

research center for mining and natural gas companies located 

in the region. Facilities developed at the center included four 

general purpose classrooms, a biology/chemistry lab, computer 

lab, a distance learning and videoconference classroom, a 

nursing classroom, two industrial training classrooms, a 

multipurpose training hall, and two conference rooms. DCER’s 

educational partners, Mountain Empire Community College and 

Southwestern Virginia Community College, would offer general 

education academic courses and focused industry training 

classes developed in response to the needs of clients. A 

promising beginning had 379 students enrolled in 303 

workforce training activities and 67 college academic classes, 

but a fairly rapid succession of events effectively scuttled 

DCER’s prospects for success. 

Interviewees explained that Travelocity, which had a call center 

in the area, closed operations, relocating the call center to 

India. A total of three call center operations moved in and out 

of the location over the next 4 years, and EQT, a local natural 

gas company that was expected to become a research partner 

was acquired by a company in Texas. Failure to retain students 

made it difficult for educational partners to sustain funding for 

course offerings. Further, equipment and software purchased in 

2008 are aging, and resources for replacements to meet online 

training needs are scarce. 

The current situation is a far cry from the energizing vision that 

launched DCER. Interviewees stated that some classes continue 

to be offered, but the majority of the building serves as a 

temporary location for district court services while a new 

courthouse is being built. A small call center that services the 

A promising beginning 

had 379 students enrolled 

in 303 workforce training 

activities and 67 college 

academic classes, but a 

fairly rapid succession of 

events effectively scuttled 

DCER’s prospects for 

success.

Failure to retain students

made it difficult for 

educational partners to 

sustain funding for course 

offerings. Further, 

equipment and software 

purchased in 2008 are

aging, and resources for 

replacements to meet 

online training needs are 

scarce.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-65 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board operates in some of 

the space. DCER has been managing the full facility, but with 

the recent loss of its director, the building is expected to be 

turned over to the county for its general use. The local hospital 

will use the nursing classroom to teach second-year licensed 

practical nursing students.

Lessons Learned 

 A realistic and holistic needs assessment should be done 

before investments are made and plans implemented: 

The best intentions and adequate financial resources to 

implement an integrated plan that builds on technology 

infrastructure could not overcome the challenges 

presented by the region’s demographics and its remote 

location. 

 Rightsizing investments using publicly available data 

about potential participants could prevent overscaled 

investments: This project is a good example of scale 

handicapping an endeavor from the start. The facility 

that was renovated is large, and given the demographics 

of the area, it would have been difficult to generate 

enough volume of students to sustain operations. For 

instance, the high school only has 385 students, of 

whom a small fraction would be seniors whose schedules 

and educational aspirations would align with the DCER 

premise. The DCER facility is extremely overscaled in 

relation to the area’s potential demand.

 Expecting too much of wireless technology: Too much 

reliance on wireless technology to deliver broadband 

Internet was a risky strategy. 

7.2.16 West Virginia State Museum Education 

Community Profile 

West Virginia’s history has been profoundly shaped by its 

mountainous geography and the natural resources they 

contain, with mining and logging long dominating the economy. 

As a leading producer of energy, West Virginia is closely 

associated with extraction operations producing coal and 

natural gas, but the state is actively working to secure a place 

as a leader in wind and other green clusters. 138 Travel and 

tourism draw visitors across seasons to enjoy the many 

 

138 West Virginia Department of Commerce. 2015. “Energy 

Opportunities.” Accessed at 

http://www.wvcommerce.org/(S(2l44d0rotmq4rg453yacklfy))/ener

gy/energyopportunities/default.aspx on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-66

recreational activities supported by West Virginia’s many rivers, 

forests, caves, and mountains. 139

West Virginia is a state of many small and medium-sized cities, 

all of which are designated within the Appalachian Region. 

Although the state has persistently lagged national averages on 

key economic and demographic indications (see Table 7-19), 

there has been economic progress in recent years, as 

evidenced in ARC’s economic status designation. In 2008, at 

the time of the ARC grant, 13 West Virginia counties were 

considered “distressed” compared with 9 in 2016; the number 

of “at-risk” counties declined from 17 to 4, and “transitional”

counties increased from 15 to 22 over that period. 

Table 7-19. West Virginia Demographic and Economic Profile 

Geography

Percent, % Percent, %

Population Growth (2010

–2013)

Population > 65 YearsEducational Attainment (> HS Graduates)Per Capita Income, $Unemployment(June 2014)Poverty

West Virginia −0.1 17.3 83.9 22,966 6.5 17.9

United States 2.5 14.1 86.0 28,155 6.1 15.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts sourced for the following data categories: population growth, population 

> 65 years; education attainment, per capita income, and poverty (the most recent year available). Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Map sourced for the following data category: 

unemployment (June 2014). 

Project Synopsis 

The statewide mission of the West Virginia State Museum, 

encompassing outreach to all 55 counties of West Virginia, was 

enhanced in 2009 with the opening of its new and 

technologically improved facility at the Cultural Center in the 

state capitol, Charleston. ARC funded the West Virginia Division 

of History and Culture to improve the museum’s educational 

programs with high-technology equipment in 2008: $200,000 

 

139 West Virginia Division of Tourism. 2013. “Economic Impact of 

Travel on West Virginia 2000-2012 Detailed State and County 

Estimates.” Accessed at 

http://www.wvcommerce.org/App_Media/assets/doc/travelandrec/i

ndustry/marketing/2012_Economic_Impact.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-67 

matched $235,000 in state funds.140 The primary objective was 

to develop the museum’s capacity to deliver highly impactful 

virtual museum experiences to classrooms across the state. 

State-of-the-art technology classrooms were equipped at the 

museum to support on-site instruction and virtual learning 

programs. The West Virginia Division of Culture and History 

worked with teams of lead teachers and curriculum specialists 

to develop teacher kits, curriculum guides, and educational 

rooms. Classroom teachers were trained to incorporate these 

activities into their lesson plans. Plans to train 75 teachers with 

a goal of having 50 actually implement the programs in their 

instruction plans and classrooms were exceeded with 109 

teachers actually trained. Widespread adoption and an increase 

in personal data devices are spurring continued innovation in 

the virtual delivery of museum programs to students and 

teachers. Through this project, creative use of technology in 

cultural resources fosters among students a shared virtual 

experience of what it means to be a West Virginian and 

provides continued professional development for educators in 

the use of emerging technology for experiential instruction. 

Site Visit Findings 

The West Virginia State Museum Education Initiative 

demonstrates a very successful model for using virtual tools to 

provide rich educational experiences that have been endorsed 

by the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDOE). 

Sixteen lead teachers recruited from across the state were paid 

to assist in developing teacher kits and instructional materials 

to augment the virtual classroom activities. The project director 

noted that the lead teachers’ participation not only ensured the 

relevance and quality of the teacher kits that were developed 

but also embedded the idea of the museum as an active 

partner in their classrooms. Museum staff work closely with 

WVDOE to develop materials that align with subject and gradelevel standards. Workshops conducted in approximately 40 

counties in summer 2013 delivered training and teacher kits to 

more than 1,800 teachers. Kits on various topics contain topical 

information binders, instructions on accessing relevant 

websites, lesson plans, and activity packs for students. 

 

140 West Virginia Division of History and Culture is a nonprofit without 

501(c)(3) IRS status. 

Through this project, 

creative use of technology 

in cultural resources 

fosters among students a 

shared virtual experience 

of what it means to be a 

West Virginian and 

provides continued 

professional development 

for educators in the use of 

emerging technology for 

experiential instruction.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-68

To date, up to 9,000 students have been involved in virtual 

museum sessions with involvement having more than one form. 

Students visiting the museum can now have their experience 

enriched with sessions in the museum’s technology-enhanced 

classroom. Students use tablet computers to develop materials 

that can be taken back to their schools for later use by 

downloading to their phones or flash drives. Students who lack 

home computers are encouraged to use alternative display 

options that are often more available, such as play stations or 

televisions. Museum staff conduct regular programmatic 

reviews to ensure effectiveness of the students’ experiences at 

the museum. Alternatively, students’ visits to the museum may 

be entirely virtual, foregoing the expense of actual field trips 

but securing the experiential learning opportunity. 

Although the West Virginia State Museum Education Initiative 

successfully implemented web-based virtual applications, the 

audiovisual equipment that was envisioned as supporting realtime interactive statewide classes has been underused. The 

main impediment seems to be the absence of sufficient 

bandwidth or appropriate equipment on the receiving end. The 

museum staff and education partners struggle to develop “best 

practice” materials and presentations without access to a 

network of field partners and wider opportunities to collaborate. 

Finally, the effectiveness of their outreach efforts is limited by 

the lack of broadband Internet access in all West Virginia 

communities. The lack of access to high-speed Internet within 

many of the schools creates a major barrier to the museum’s 

primary outreach goals. 

Lessons Learned 

In many ways, the West Virginia State Museum was ahead of 

its time in the marriage of technology, education, and cultural 

resources, particularly in the span of its ambitions to serve a 

largely rural state. Because this project was ahead of its time, it 

was appropriate that the project used a pilot test approach to 

project monitoring and evaluation. A few key observations may 

have resonance with a broader audience that is interested in 

adapting technology to engage people with history and cultural 

resources: 

 The museum is practicing technology diffusion in a novel 

way, involving “push” and “pull” models simultaneously: 

Lead teachers brought in to develop engaging lesson 

To date, up to 9,000 

students have been 

involved in virtual 

museum sessions.

The main impediment 

seems to be the absence 

of sufficient bandwidth or 

appropriate equipment on 

the receiving end.

In many ways, the West 

Virginia State Museum 

was ahead of its time in 

the marriage of 

technology, education, 

and cultural resources, 

particularly in the span of 

its ambitions to serve a 

largely rural state.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-69 

plans become, in effect, sophisticated technology 

missionaries who push the benefits of the virtual field 

trips and teacher kits on their colleagues. The colleagues 

are simultaneously being pulled toward using the 

technology, unique content, and virtual experience it 

delivers to their students, whose familiarity and interest 

in all things digital makes the museum’s approach all the 

more compelling. 

 Communication is a two-way process that can only be as 

effective as the least well-provisioned element: 

Equipping the museum with state-of-the art audiovisual 

equipment is, in some ways, a stranded investment 

when the majority of classrooms that are the target for 

the live virtual programming lack the equipment or 

broadband Internet access of the speed and quality 

needed. 

7.3 SUMMARY FINDINGS 

Case studies conducted for this evaluation provide a deep and 

more intimate look at a select mix of ARC-funded 

telecommunications and technology projects, with the express 

purpose of developing recommendations for best-practice 

strategies for expanding broadband Internet access, adoption, 

and use in the Appalachian Region. The mix of 18 projects 

visited included many identified as promising exemplars of 

success, as well as a smaller set of projects for which the case 

study was, in effect, a forensic postmortem on projects that did 

not succeed, despite laudable efforts. Examination of crosscutting themes, commonalities, and ubiquities among these 18 

projects illuminates the nature of success in this arena and 

provides information that can be used to the advantage of 

projects funded by ARC in the future. 

7.3.1 Generalizability of Case Study Findings 

The case study collective mirrors the full project portfolio in 

many dimensions including geographic distribution, year of 

investment, duration of project, scale of ARC investment, and 

leveraged funds. This diversity strengthens the relevance of 

findings from these case studies to the spectrum of ARC 

telecommunications and technology projects. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-70

Previous analysis in Section 5 looked at the overall 

performance of the portfolio, as measured by the percentage of 

projects that met or exceeded their respective project goals: 

slightly more than half (55 percent) had met at least 85 

percent of their goals. We sought to augment this 

understanding of performance in the case studies and 

considered stated project goals in combination with evidence 

gathered during the site visits. 

All projects have officially closed, and if related activities are 

ongoing, they are being sustained with local or other funds that 

build on ARC’s original investment. In general, we observed 

that more long-term success was achieved through a phased 

evolution over 12 years that incorporated some combination of: 

increased awareness, growth in demand, partnership building, 

and work across political and geographic boundaries to boot 

strap infrastructure projects. 

In contrast, a project that could not achieve its goals and is 

now effectively defunct, the Dickenson Research and Education 

Center (DREC) in Clintwood, Virginia, was thwarted from 

success by an overreliance on wireless solutions that could not 

provide service on a level that was needed to support strategic 

visions. The DREC was created in large part to train workers for 

technology jobs that failed to materialize as the call centers 

that were recruited moved on to areas with better, fiber-based 

access. 

Stranded Investments 

Directly related to the issue of rapidly evolving technology is 

the risk of stranded investments. The dynamic nature of 

advances in multiple aspects of broadband Internet and webbased applications, software-designed networking, cloud 

technology, open-source software, and rapidly advancing 

feature-rich personal access devices contribute to a situation 

where the optimal solution can seem like an ever-moving 

target. This should be of particular concern because the bulk of 

ARC’s telecommunications and technology resources are 

expended on equipment purchases. While all projects confront 

this situation, the successful ones highlighted in these cases 

embed flexibility into their project design and equipment 

investments to optimize their ability to respond to the 

hyperdynamic technology arena. One example of this is the 

decision by Three Rivers Planning District to move away from a 

Although the 18 projects 

visited represent only 

slightly more than 5 

percent of the total FY 

2004 through FY 2010 

technology awards, they 

include at least one 

example of every project 

function and every 

beneficiary category.

The successful ones 

highlighted in these cases 

embed flexibility into 

their project design and 

equipment investments to 

optimize their ability to 

respond to the 

hyperdynamic technology 

arena.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-71 

proprietary vendor-defined and controlled electronic filing 

system for its multicounty governments to open-source 

software developed and maintained by its university partner. 

A different perspective on the concept of stranded can be taken 

from the West Virginia Museum project where state-of-the-art 

video conferencing equipment that potentially permits real-time 

educational programming to complement virtual field trips is 

underutilized and risks becoming obsolete because the 

technology in the schools that are targeted to receive the 

programming is inadequate. ARC is in a position to guide 

applicants to embed flexibility into project design and 

equipment selections to enable longevity for returns on 

investment. ARC itself is repeatedly lauded for the relative 

flexibility they afford applicants to remodel projects as needed, 

so this idea builds on an attitude/practice ARC already 

embraces. 

Planning 

Three projects are considered “defunct,” having effectively 

ceased operations related to the project; one planning project 

successfully completed its limited-term objectives and is no 

longer active; two projects are operating, albeit in a limited 

capacity, having accomplished their primary goals and then 

having to retrench for reasons explained in the individual case 

studies; four projects are operating for the original purpose at 

levels similar to the grant period; and seven projects (half of 

the 14 nondefunct projects) have expanded operations beyond 

the scale or scope originally funded by ARC. 

In summary, the cases are representative of the collective 

portfolio on many measures and are exemplary in myriad ways. 

The organizations managing these projects continue to work 

towards improving the economic conditions and quality of life in 

communities they serve, despite a general worsening of the 

economic situation in many parts of the Appalachian Region 

overall and especially in the distressed and at-risk counties that 

were included in the case studies. And, while three projects 

included in this study did not meet their longer-term goals and 

are now defunct, they are still contributing to technology 

deployment in the Region by allowing their experiences to be 

mined for lessons that might help prepare others for the 

challenges they will confront as they work to transform their 

communities. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-72

7.3.2 Cross-Cutting Issues 

Common key questions provided the platform from which 

unique aspects of each project as well as cross-cutting issues 

could be extracted for use in development of best practice 

recommendations. Through discussion, interviewees elaborated 

on the criticality of ARC in confronting previous and ongoing 

challenges and suggested the types of assistance ARC could 

provide going forward that would have the greatest impact on 

their efforts. A discrete set of cross-cutting factors emerged 

that shed light on the success or limitations of the broader set 

of cases studied. These “big” factors are discussed below.

Infrastructure Evolution 

Fiber is the gold standard, and Appalachian communities want 

it. The telecommunications landscape changed significantly 

over the examined period as a result of the hyper-stimulating 

effect of $4 billion injected into the market from the BTOP and 

Broadband Investment Program (BIP components of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that 

primarily funded research and middle mile infrastructure and 

adoption efforts that targeted underserved rural communities, 

such as the communities ARC serves.141,142 Today, ARC 

stakeholders have more precise information about broadband 

Internet coverage gaps and, as a result of adoption efforts, 

have a more sophisticated and receptive understanding of 

broadband. The last mile piece of the connectivity puzzle is still 

missing, and repeatedly in these interviews participants shared 

that ARC stakeholders think that their communities’ futures are 

limited as long as last mile service is inadequate or unavailable 

entirely. Interviewees made it clear that they would welcome 

any and all assistance that ARC could offer to address this 

pressing problem, including having last mile be an express 

focus for future grants, perhaps even changing ARC’s charter to 

allow it to make awards to incent private providers to bring 

services to regions where the market case does not presently 

support fiber deployment. A major theme that cut across 

 

141 Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Homepage. 

Accessed at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/ on August 1, 2015. 

142 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service. January 

2011. Advancing Broadband: A Foundation for Strong Rural 

Communities. Broadband Initiatives Program Awards Report. 

Accessed at 

http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/reports/RBBreportV5ForWeb.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

A major theme that cut 

across project types was 

that a community’s 

default position has to be 

that fiber connectivity is 

the goal and wireless 

should be seen as an 

adjunct or transitional 

means, not an end point.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-73 

project types was that a community’s default position has to be 

that fiber connectivity is the goal and wireless should be seen 

as an adjunct or transitional means, not an end point. 

Another theme that cuts across the projects, successful and 

not, involves the role that planning has in shaping successful 

outcomes. There are multiple aspects to this issue. Lead 

regional planning organizations combine strong planning skills, 

deep contextual knowledge, external contacts, and experience 

in collaboration and oversight with the perspective to see 

projects as part of a broader, holistic, multipartner, 

multiphased response to challenges or emerging opportunities. 

Not surprising, many of the more successful projects were led 

by professional planners. Even though all projects do not have 

this depth of planning experience, all can benefit by borrowing 

best practices from a different sector. With encouragement, 

organizations planning telecommunications projects can 

become better prepared to respond to major threats and adapt 

to changing circumstances. Planning cannot prevent disasters 

from happening, as in the devastating tornado that destroyed 

fiber being deployed for the Marion County School System, but 

perhaps proactive consideration of worst-case scenarios in a 

tornado prone locale might have positioned the situation to be 

something other than a total loss. 

Scale 

Aggregation of demand is a proven strategy for effecting 

broadband Internet deployment in rural and remote 

communities.143 Similarly, aggregation of interests proves to 

also be powerful in delivering other types of successful 

technology-based development projects in Appalachia. Many of 

the more successful and sustained efforts supported by ARC 

between 2004 and 2010 were centered at regional commissions 

or planning districts that had as their target multiple contiguous 

Appalachian counties. Economies of scale and the opportunity 

to phase development over the region in accordance with 

member counties’ relative receptivity and capacity to undertake 

new projects, investments, or technology adoption efforts seem 

to promote more successful outcomes in our case studies. 

Southeast Tennessee Development District provides a best 

 

143 Battista, Daniela. 2002. “Demand aggregation to encourage 

infrastructure rollout to under-served regions.” Organisation for Cooperation and Economic Development (Paris, France). Accessed at 

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/2491219.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

Lead regional planning 

organizations combine 

strong planning skills, 

deep contextual 

knowledge, external 

contacts and experience 

in collaboration and 

oversight with the 

perspective to see 

projects as part of a 

broader, holistic multipartner, multi-phased 

response to challenges or 

emerging opportunities.

Regional efforts often 

benefit from deliberate 

processes to develop 

shared visions and have 

outreach and 

communication to 

stakeholders as an 

explicit and ongoing 

component of strategy.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-74

practice example of this finding in its participation with 

neighboring states in formal cross-border development efforts 

(see Section 7.3.16).

This is not to say that regional projects should take precedence 

over appropriately sized smaller, one-county projects. The 

emphasis needs to be on defining “appropriate” in the context 

of particular undertakings. Specifically, some of the least 

successful grants suffered from undertaking projects of a scale 

that could not be supported by the local capacity, however 

defined. In some cases, the market was insufficient, and in 

others, the population was too small. Demographics are a 

powerful force that needs to be considered to right-size a 

development effort. 

Measuring Leadership 

Good leadership enables good results, and it is true many of 

these projects were characterized by exemplary leaders who 

were informed, committed, and respected. One additional trait 

that was also observed was the attention leaders gave to 

project metrics and outcome evaluation. In this instance, 

project leaders take good measures and keep good records. 

Even in one of the projects that was confronted with challenges 

that could not be overcome, the attention to data collection and 

recordkeeping attests to the leaders’ commitment to 

internalizing lessons that could be used to better guide future 

efforts. Project leaders shared many thoughts about making 

evaluations more relevant by ensuring that the right things are 

being measured at the appropriate milestones during and after 

the project. This focus on metrics was echoed by survey results 

from the broader evaluation that showed significant longerterm benefits that can only be captured over longer time 

periods as projects mature. 

Project leaders shared 

many thoughts about

making evaluations more 

relevant by ensuring that 

the rights things are 

being measured at the 

appropriate milestones 

during and after the 

project.
Section 7 — Case Studies 

7-75 

Partnerships 

Survey results show that 80 percent of ARC 

telecommunications project stakeholders felt that they were 

better able to facilitate new relationships with other 

stakeholders as a result of the projects. This finding is 

reinforced by the case studies. Beyond infrastructure, 

“network” in the context of community and economic 

development has to be actively manifested in strong and 

diverse outreach and engagement efforts to build relationships. 

Proactive and inclusive engagement of stakeholders from 

across the extended community of interest characterizes all of 

the most successful efforts across project types. For example, 

Whatley Health Services in Alabama works to overcome a 

severe shortage of doctors and dentists who are willing to 

practice in its service area by actively building relationships and 

developing innovative cross-training opportunities with the 

state’s medical and dental schools and advocating for the need 

its efforts represent. 

Projects that arise from shared needs can contribute to 

development of shared vision and shared responsibility that 

underpin sustainability. In this area, local utility companies, 

government, a community college, and a workforce 

development board came together to create a focused-industry 

training center that is meeting the industry’s needs for a skilled 

technology workforce today and is evolving to meet emerging 

needs for the industry’s transition as it prepares to be involved 

in broadband Internet deployment. The Center was the result of 

a strong partnership that is making the community more 

competitive in multiple ways. 

ARC: A Nexus of Information and Action 

One of the hallmark values of the Internet is its ability to 

transform knowledge and high-value information into a digital 

format to make evermore complex and comprehensive data 

ubiquitously available. One of the rate-limiting factors impeding 

full realization of this valuable capacity is the fact that laws, 

rules, and practices that govern the full adoption of many highvalue applications have not developed apace of the technology. 

(We discuss this further in Section 8.) This is particularly true 

in the areas of telehealth, legal services, and education, where 

a mosaic of unharmonized local, state, and federal rules 

complicate adoption of truly critical broadband Internet 

Survey results show that 

80 percent of ARC 

telecommunications 

project stakeholders felt 

that they were better able 

to facilitate new 

relationships with other 

stakeholders as a result of 

projects. This finding is 

reinforced by the case

studies.

When this convergence of 

interests is paired with an 

operating model of 

coordination rather than 

control, the outcomes can 

be impressive, as with the 

Regional High Growth 

Training Center in 

Somerset, Kentucky.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

7-76

applications. Impediments arising from the need to rationalize 

rules, laws, and licensing practices across political borders were 

cited by interviewees as limiting the ability of individuals and 

organizations to bring web-based benefits to remote and rural 

communities. For example, in telehealth the lack of 

reimbursement parity for telehealth services and restrictions 

that prevent doctors from providing services across state 

borders limit widespread utilization applications that are critical 

to rural Appalachian communities going forward. 

In general, stakeholders recognize that developments in this 

arena move very fast, and many are concerned about their 

capacity to keep up with changes in technology and its use. The 

issues of how best to stay apprised of developments, how to 

move along the technology learning curve, and how to ensure 

that they are aware of opportunities for assistance emerged as 

common concerns. Opportunities to share information and be 

part of a broader learning community of practitioners who 

share an interest in bringing the power of the Internet to bear 

on local problems and opportunities would be welcomed by 

leaders and managers. 

7.3.3 The Difference Made 

“Community” in this context encompasses 105 counties, 44 (41 

percent) of which are considered by ARC as “distressed” or “at

risk.” These projects enabled public and nonprofit organizations 

to dramatically change the way they interact with clients and 

increase the number and quality of services delivered. The 

projects expanded the universe of technology-assisted teachers 

in the Appalachian Region and reached learners of all ages 

through innovative educational strategies. After the ARC grants 

ended, most projects sustained local support to continue 

operations or expand their operations. That community support 

attests to the fact that value of their efforts was realized. As 

best-practice models, these projects offer amplified insights 

into the factors that differentiate levels of success, providing 

guidance to ARC as it looks forward to helping other 

communities shape and build a more competitive, technologyenabled future for their community or region. 

The resounding 

conclusion from these 

case studies is that 

through ARC-supported 

efforts 18 disadvantaged 

and underserved 

communities acquired 

telecommunications 

infrastructure and 

technology that resulted 

in improved access to 

education, health care, 

government and 

community services, 

business development, job 

training, and improved 

employability.
8-1 

Policy Issues 

In this section, we turn from assessing the performance of 

ARC’s telecommunications and technology grants from 2004 

through 2010 to examining key policy issues that will likely 

influence ARC’s ability to support broadband Internet access in 

the Appalachian Region. Many issues are at play in the 

telecommunications realm, but here we survey 23 of the most 

salient for ARC to consider. As discussed in the literature review

(Section 4), understanding the policy environment is important 

because there are many cross-cutting and significant 

implications for businesses, workers, households, and 

community-based institutions like libraries and schools as they 

seek to flourish and maintain relevance in the future.

To best decipher the policy issues, we divide them into 

categories: direct broadband, indirect broadband, broadband 

applications, broadband availability, broadband adoption and 

utilization, and cross-cutting policy issues. These policy issues 

are distinct but should be approached holistically because each 

issue is interrelated.

The following policy discussion demonstrates the dynamic 

policy environment in which ARC is operating, which shows little 

indication of slowing. As ARC forges into a new period of 

telecommunications and technology grantmaking, it will be 

critical for staff and advisors to remain acutely aware of the 

policy environment so that ARC can best carve out a role for its 

investments to have the most long-term impacts.

8.1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

Evaluation for the sake of assessing the success of what has 

already been done is of marginal value unless evaluators 

extract lessons that can guide future actions. For ARC, it will 

also be important to merge the contemporary realities of the 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-2 

policy changes that support broadband Internet access, 

adoption, and affordability with the findings from this 

evaluation. The forces shaping the telecommunications 

ecosystem today are very different from those that defined it 

through much of the 2004 through 2010 evaluation period. This 

rapidly evolving ecosystem is diverse, complicated, and 

dynamic, bordering on turbulent. Consider the following: 

 Networks—a shift to cloud computing is redefining the 

nature, scale, and frequency of telecommunications 

infrastructure investment at every level. 

 Devices—explosive adoption of personal access devices 

and the Internet of Things is fundamentally shifting the 

paradigm of how individuals and organizations access 

and use digital information. 

 Applications—mobility is the growth medium that has 

moved web-based services from essentially $0 to almost 

$50 billion in 2010 to a projected $143 billion in 2016. 

We delve into 23 of the key policy issues that the RTI team 

identified as most pertinent to ARC as it considers charting its 

path forward. These issues are organized by the functional 

framework we describe in Section 5: direct broadband, indirect 

broadband/supported by broadband, applications of broadband, 

and availability of broadband. We added two additional 

categories. The fifth briefly discusses broadband adoption and 

utilization. Finally, a sixth category is cross-functional to 

capture policy issues that affect all of the functions described. 

Table 8-1 summarizes these functional categories that we use 

to describe the policy topics most pressing for rural broadband 

Internet access and adoption. 

The RTI team relied heavily on the expertise of Jim Baller, Mark 

Johnson, Jane Smith Patterson, Ashley Stelfox, and Deborah 

Watts for guidance and direction in identifying the most 

pressing policy issues for ARC to consider. The guidance from 

this expert group was supported by current research on these 

topic areas. 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-3 

Table 8-1. Function Dimension of the Evaluation Framework 

Function Description

Direct broadband “Outside the building” projects that expand broadband Internet access or 

improve Internet connectivity for local businesses, schools, or the 

community more broadly.

Indirect broadband/

supported by broadband

“Inside the building” projects that invest in networking equipment and 

other telecommunications tools that are supported by or depend on 

broadband Internet access.

Applications of broadband Projects that convey information or provide services via broadband 

Internet.

Availability of broadband Programs that support greater broadband Internet availability, generally 

by providing additional funding opportunities.

Adoption and utilization of 

broadband

Projects focused on improving adoption and utilization of broadband 

Internet-enabled services, including developing the digital literacy of 

participants through training, professional development, or education to 

spur adoption of broadband Internet and telecommunications 

technologies.

Cross-cutting broadband Projects that address multiple aspects of the broadband Internet

spectrum from direct broadband, indirect broadband/supported by 

broadband, and applications of broadband to adoption of broadband.

Note: This table is a revised version of Table 5-2.

Source: RTI, ARC 

8.2 KEY POLICY ISSUES 

We identified 23 policy issues that are most salient for ARC and 

its grantmaking over the next 3 to 5 years. Policy issues are 

organized by broadband Internet function and listed in 

Table 8-2. These issues are important because policies will 

affect the ability of hospitals, businesses, governments, 

schools, and colleges to provide goods, services, and amenities 

that will help make the Appalachian Region viable and 

competitive. 

Now we describe each set of policies by function area by briefly 

defining the policy, indicating its importance, and summarizing 

why it is important to ARC. 

These issues are 

important because 

policies will affect the 

ability of hospitals, 

businesses, governments, 

schools, and colleges to 

provide goods, services,

and amenities that will 

help make the 

Appalachian Region

viable and competitive.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-4 

Table 8-2. Key Policy Issues in Broadband Internet 

Function Key Policy Issues

Direct broadband  Copper-to-fiber transition/“IP Transition”

 Mobile vs. fiber

 Gigabit cities

 Last-mile connectivity

 Electric co-ops, municipal electric utilities, and other entrants into the 

marketplace

 Public–private partnerships

Indirect broadband/

supported by

broadband

 Mobile device penetration

 Connected devices to the Internet or the “Internet of Things”

 Cloud computing

 Medical insurance for telehealth projects

Applications of 

broadband

 Legal barriers to telemedicine

 e911 needs coordination with FirstNet

 Schools are shifting to digital curricula and e-textbooks

 Certification issues surrounding distance learning for teachers

Availability of 

broadband

 E-rate program

 Federal and state government funding for broadband Internet

Across all functions  Net neutrality

 “Dig and wire once”/coinvestment

 Local choice

 Cybersecurity/privacy of data

 Tax policy

 Broadband Opportunities Council

Source: RTI, Various. 

8.2.1 Direct Broadband Policy Issues 

Direct broadband refers to investments “outside of the building” 

that expand broadband Internet access or improve connectivity 

(see Table 8-3). Examples include laying fiber optics or 

enabling community-wide Wi-Fi. We offer seven examples of 

policies affecting the ability for rural communities to access and 

afford broadband Internet. Rural communities and ARC must 

wrestle with issues of upgrading broadband Internet 

infrastructure, shifting markets and options for acquiring 

broadband Internet, trends that hold potential to exacerbate 

the digital divide, and difficulties obtaining last-mile access. 

Each of these issues is ever-changing, making it very complex 

for communities to navigate and determine their best option for 

acquiring direct broadband Internet. 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-5 

Table 8-3. Key Policy Issues for Direct Broadband Deployment 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications 

for ARC?

Infrastructure

Copper-to-fiber 

transition/“IP 

transition”

Physical networks that 

transmit communications 

services are changing from 

copper networks originally 

intended only for transmitting 

phone calls to modern 

communications networks 

(such as DSL and fiber 

networks) built for a variety of 

purposes, one of which is 

phone service.a

Modernizing networks requires 

upgrading equipment and 

software that are used to 

transmit signals.b

Significant investment is 

required during this transition 

process.

Low-income and rural 

communities tend to be less 

profitable for telephone 

providers, leaving these 

communities particularly 

vulnerable to inadequate basic 

telephone services during this 

transition. Telephone services 

affect the ability to use 911, 

home alarms, and ATM 

machines.c

Mobile vs. fiber Given the high economic 

barriers to deploying fiber 

networks in low populationdensity areas, many rural 

communities have assumed 

that mobile broadband 

Internet networks will be their 

only viable option to fiber 

networks for the foreseeable 

future. This has been a cause 

for concern, as today’s mobile 

broadband Internet networks 

(e.g., Long-Term Evolution

and Wi-Fi networks) are not 

able to match wired networks, 

particularly fiber-to-thepremises networks, in terms of 

reliability, scalability, speed,

and the many other factors 

that would make rural 

communities competitive with 

more advantaged 

communities.

Given the weaknesses of the 

current generation of mobile 

broadband Internet compared 

with fiber broadband Internet

networks, rural communities 

see mobile broadband Internet

as a short-term stopgap/stepping stone to fiber 

networks. There are, however, 

wireless technologies under 

development that, when 

combined with fiber driven to 

deep into neighborhood nodes, 

will enable data speeds of 

hundreds of megabits per 

second and possibly even 

exceed a gigabit per second.

These technologies, which are 

sometimes referred to as fiberwireless (FiWi) or hybrid fiberwireless (HFW) technologies, 

may create important new 

options for rural communities.

ARC can continue to monitor 

technology developments and 

help educate communities on 

the various network options 

that may be available to 

them, including fiber, 

FiWi/HFW, etc. ARC can hold 

virtual briefings (podcasts or 

webcasts) to review different 

technologies and how they 

best fit for different 

communities. When FiWi/HFW 

technologies become viable 

for rural communities, ARC 

should also consider taking an 

active role in policy 

discussions surrounding 

federal and state incentives 

for the deployment of such 

networks.

Trends

Gigabit cities Localities with broadband 

Internet networks that provide 

ultra-fast speeds. One gigabit 

per second is roughly 100 

times faster than the average 

fixed high-speed Internet 

connection.d

Spurred by efforts in 

Chattanooga, TN, and the 

Google Fiber rollout, 

communities across the United 

States are seeking to acquire 

gigabit networks by working 

with willing incumbents, 

exploring public–private 

partnerships, or developing 

their own networks.e

Appalachian communities will 

struggle to keep up with the 

rapidly improving Internet 

speeds of communities with 

greater access to robust 

networks. This makes the 

Appalachian Region less 

attractive for ICT and techbased companies, and it 

makes it difficult for ARC 

residents to access the next 

generation of innovative 

services offered via the 

Internet.

(continued) 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-6 

Table 8-3. Key Policy Issues for Direct Broadband Deployment (continued) 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications for 

ARC?

Last-mile 

connectivity 

(sometimes 

referred to as

“first mile”)

The final wireline segment of 

a broadband Internet network 

that reaches the premises of 

end users. This is a frequent 

bottleneck and can be 

expensive to resolve.f

Internet access providers may 

not serve some areas at all or 

may provide inadequate lastmile connections that cannot 

support rapidly evolving 

needs for high-capacity 

broadband Internet. Publicsector investments in 

“middle-mile” broadband 

Internet networks can reduce 

the costs to private 

companies of operating in and 

entering the last-mile 

marketplace.g

Where there is insufficient 

investment by the private 

market, ARC should consider 

how to best spur last-mile 

connectivity for Appalachian 

communities possibly by 

investing in middle-mile 

networks, supporting community 

investments in their own 

networks, or facilitating public–

private partnerships for the last 

mile.h

Market Options

Electric 

cooperatives, 

municipal 

electric utilities, 

and new 

entrants into 

the 

marketplace

Electric cooperatives are well 

positioned to deploy 

broadband Internet networks 

in rural areas. Ten to 15% of 

electric cooperatives may 

ultimately carry out some 

form of broadband Internet

deployment to markets that 

are underserved by 

incumbent Internet service 

providers.u

Similar to electric 

cooperatives, municipal 

electric utilities are well

positioned to deploy 

broadband Internet networks 

in their service areas. In fact, 

municipal electric utilities 

have been pioneers in the

broadband Internet space, 

both because they have the 

infrastructure in place that 

eases deployment and a high 

internal demand for 

communications services.

Given that they are owned by 

their customers, cooperatives 

and municipal electric utilities 

can be more attuned to 

community needs.

Electric cooperatives and 

municipal electric utilities may 

be able to leverage funding 

from other federal sources 

(e.g., FCC, USDA Rural 

Utilities Service), and they 

have significant knowledge 

and expertise from years of 

providing electricity service 

that will carry over well to 

broadband Internet

deployment.

ARC should determine the 

markets where electric 

cooperatives and municipal 

electric utilities currently operate 

in the Appalachian Region and 

which of those markets lack

adequate service from 

incumbents. In those cases, ARC 

can explore partnerships with 

electric cooperatives. ARC can 

also support removal of barriers 

to entry by electric co-ops and 

municipal networks.

Public–private

partnerships

Models for public–private

partnerships for broadband 

Internet deployment include:

 Private sector led

 Nonprofit led consortium

 Government led and 

private supported

 Joint ownership

A common model is for a 

municipality to build and own 

the broadband Internet

network and then lease it to 

private Internet service 

providers.j

The private sector alone may 

not deploy adequate 

broadband Internet networks 

in rural areas because of low 

population density and more 

difficult topology. Public–

private partnerships can help 

overcome these issues by 

leveraging public funds, 

community assets, local 

leadership, and private-sector 

expertise and capital.k

ARC cannot make grants directly 

to private companies. However, 

as examples show, public–

private partnerships can be an 

effective model for deploying 

broadband Internet in rural 

areas. ARC could collect and 

disseminate information about 

public–private partnerships and 

encourage grantees to consider 

public–private partnership 

options for deployment,

improvement, and expansion of 

local broadband Internet

networks.

(continued) 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-7 

Table 8-3. Key Policy Issues for Direct Broadband Deployment (continued) 

a Federal Communications Commission. May 20, 2014. “IP Transition.” Accessed at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/iptransition on August 1, 2015. 

b

 Ibid. 

c Public Knowledge. May 11, 2015. “The Impact of Technology Transitions on Rural Communities.” Accessed at 

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/the-impact-of-technology-transitions-on-rural-communities. 

d

 Federal Communications Commission. January 18, 2013. “FCC’S Broadband Acceleration Initiative to Foster 

Gigabit Goal.” Accessed at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-318489A1.pdf on August 1, 

2015. 

e Barkis, Will. March 17, 2015. “The Gigabit Age is Upon Us.” TechCrunch. Accessed at 

http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/17/the-gigabit-age-is-upon-us/#.giykhl:b4rU on August 1, 2015. 

f Community Broadband Networks. “Glossary Terms.” Accessed at http://muninetworks.org/glossary/1#term17. 

g The Executive Office of the President. January 2015. “Community-based Broadband Solutions.” Accessed at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/communitybased_broadband_report_by_executive_office_of_the_president.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

h

 For example, see case 7.3.10, ARC’s grant in Youngstown, Ohio.

i Craig Settles. July 2014. “Electric Co-ops Build Rural Broadband Networks.” Broadband Communities Magazine. 

Accessed at http://www.bbcmag.com/2014mags/July/BBC_Jul14_ElectricCoops.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

j National Telecommunications & Information Administration. January 2015. “BroadbandUSA: An introduction to 

effective public–private partnerships for broadband investment.” Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia_ppp_010515.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

k

 Ibid. 

Policy issues and trends for installing direct broadband continue 

to reveal a myriad of complexities for ARC to navigate in its 

operations and grantmaking. Issues of deploying last-mile 

access to households and capacity for broadband Internet to be 

equipped with the necessary speed to handle next-generation 

services will continue to plague rural regions. Also, the 

marketplace of providers best positioned to provide broadband 

Internet to rural communities is ever-changing. ARC is well 

positioned to provide the Appalachian Region with access to 

information about how to decipher the best broadband Internet 

provider for each community. Lastly, the needed infrastructure 

to position rural communities to best take advantage of future 

broadband Internet access is evolving rapidly. It will be 

important for ARC to review grants to ensure that communities 

are requesting an infrastructure to best position the community 

to readily evolve with the technology. 

8.2.2 Indirect Broadband Policy Issues 

Indirect broadband refers to projects “inside the building” and 

includes networking equipment and other telecommunications 

tools that depend on broadband Internet access (see 

Table 8-4). Key trends that are presently affecting the ability 

of rural communities to participate in a connected society and 

economy are the increased integration of devices with the 

Internet and Internet-based data storage and computing. These 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-8 

Table 8-4. Key Policy Issues for Indirect Broadband 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications for 

ARC?

Devices

Mobile device 

penetration

Increased use of devices 

such as smartphones and 

other mobile devices 

connecting to the Internet 

is shifting demand to a 

need for more mobile 

broadband Internet

networks.

As of 2014, there were 

3.6 billion unique mobile 

subscribers globally and a 

projected 4.6 billion in 

2020.a

Additional spectrum will be 

needed to allow growth of 

broadband Internet mobile 

devices. The International 

Telecommunications Union met 

in Geneva (2015) to determine 

how collaboration can 

harmonize spectrum to enable 

growth. If there are inadequate 

mobile broadband Internet

networks, the increasing 

number of people using mobile 

devices to access information 

will be either unconnected or 

connected with slower speeds. 

Decisions on how to harmonize the 

spectrum and the FCC’s 

involvement in spectrum 

assignment will be important for 

Appalachian communities. ARC 

may consider investing with other 

entities to fund research on how 

the available spectrum will affect 

the Appalachian Region. Ensuring 

access to mobile broadband 

Internet networks and affordable 

devices and services will be 

important for people living in 

Appalachia to fully participate in 

the information age.

Connected 

devices to the 

Internet or the 

Internet of 

Things

A disruptive way of 

working and living 

whereby machines are 

able to communicate with 

each other through cloud 

computing, and 

applications and data 

sensors enable a complex 

set of technologies, 

industries, and 

applications to interact in 

new and “smart” ways.b

Growth of connected devices is 

expected to be explosive with 

wide-ranging impacts for 

households and businesses. 

Gartner, Inc. estimates a 30% 

increase in connected devices 

from 2014 to 2015 with 4.9 

billion connected things in 

2015. This number is forecasted 

at 25 billion by 2020.c

Measurements from connected 

devices and sensors will be sent 

to “the cloud”” for analysis. 

Control information will be sent 

back. The amount of data 

passed by each sensor will be 

small, but the amount of traffic 

in aggregate will be huge.

If the Appalachian Region does not 

have access to ample networks to 

support the growth and use of 

connected devices, residents and 

businesses will be precluded from 

the efficiencies, increased 

productivity, and lower costs that 

connected devices offer. Thus, this 

Region will experience an 

additional negative impact on its 

ability to access educational, 

social, and economic 

opportunities. 

Internet Data Storage and Computing

Cloud computing Cloud computing refers to 

a variety of Internetbased computing 

services.

Data storage and 

computing is occurring 

over the Internet or “in 

the cloud” instead of on a 

user’s hard drive.d

Cloud computing offers a 

number of benefits: costs of 

operation are reduced; cheaper 

computers can now use 

sophisticated computers at the 

data center; need for in-house 

IT personnel to service 

computers and technical 

equipment is reduced; ability to 

work off site at any time is 

enhanced; platforms are 

stronger to more effectively 

enable collaboration across 

different software platforms.

As cloud computing continues its 

penetration of the U.S. IT market, 

ARC may need to counsel grant 

applicants to consider purchasing 

services from a cloud computing 

service rather than purchasing 

expensive hardware/software 

equipment. It will preclude 

expensive in-house IT staff as 

well. Broadband Internet access 

by Appalachian Region citizens in 

the educational, business, 

religious, and nonprofit fields or 

homes will still need the last-mile 

access to take advantage of this 

new cost-effective trend.

(continued) 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-9 

Table 8-4. Key Policy Issues for Indirect Broadband (continued) 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications for 

ARC?

Telehealth

Medical 

insurance for 

telehealth 

projects

A lack of speed and 

stability in Internet 

broadband Internet

reduces the ability of 

doctors to provide care 

via telehealth projects. 

Insurers will not insure 

telehealth that is 

unreliable. The 

effectiveness of programs 

such as the Rural Health 

Care Program of the USF, 

including the Healthcare 

Connect Fund, is 

diminished because they 

cannot be used in regions 

without quality broadband 

Internet. 

Residents in the Appalachian 

Region are typically in poorer 

health, are older, and experience 

higher rates of poverty. Lack of 

affordable quality care 

exacerbates these conditions. 

Telehealth helps expand health

care access and provide training to 

allied health professionals. 

ARC may want to monitor 

communities at risk of losing 

access to rural health care 

programs that increase access 

to residents at reduced costs. 

ARC efforts can be better 

coordinated with states, federal 

programs, and nonprofits to 

ensure broadband Internet

quality is stable and reliable to 

support telehealth equipment. 

a GSMA. “The Mobile Economy 2015.” Accessed at 

http://www.gsmamobileeconomy.com/GSMA_Global_Mobile_Economy_Report_2015.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

b

 Burrus, Daniel. No date. “The Internet of Things is Far Bigger than Anyone Realizes.” Wired. Accessed at 

http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/the-internet-of-things-bigger/ on August 1, 2015. 

c

 Gartner. November 11, 2014. “Gartner Says 4.9 Billion Connected ‘Things’ Will Be in Use in 2015.” 

 Accessed at http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2905717 on August 1, 2015.

d

 Griffith, Eric. April 17, 2015. “What is Cloud Computing?” PC Mag. Accessed at 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372163,00.asp on August 1, 2015.

trends will continue to grow in significance into the future. A 

policy area of importance for rural communities in indirect 

broadband Internet is federal government programs that enable 

access to health care via broadband Internet. 

The policy dynamics affecting the ability of people and 

community organizations to use equipment and networks 

supported by broadband Internet underscore the risk that the 

Appalachian Region faces in ensuring quality access. Without 

this access, the Region’s ability to be competitive in terms of a 

place to both do business and participate in the socioeconomic 

benefits of a digital age will likely diminish. To further 

compound these issues, the ability of doctors to provide 

cutting-edge telemedicine to rural areas will deteriorate, 

making it more difficult for residents of rural Appalachia to 

access health care. ARC should monitor policy developments in 

spectrum allocation and guide grantmaking that best positions 

the Appalachian Region to evolve with the speed requirements 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-10

and demands of devices reliant on broadband Internet to 

perform consistently and accurately. 

8.2.3 Applications of Broadband Policy Issues 

Applications of broadband refer to projects, programs, and 

services that provide information using broadband Internet, 

such as distance learning, e-payment systems, and EMRs, that 

will enable such new doctor–patient initiatives as personalized 

medicine and precision medicine.144 The key policy issues for 

applications of broadband Internet touch on some of ARC’s 

program areas such as health, education, training, and public 

safety (see Table 8-5). 

As noted above, policy implications of issues related to 

broadband Internet applications are significant. Depending on 

how issues are resolved and Appalachian communities respond 

to policy developments, the health, public safety, and basic 

access to education stand to deteriorate and thus further 

compound issues for the Appalachian Region’s socioeconomic 

health. ARC can help prepare communities for addressing these 

issues by serving as an information liaison and convener 

between the federal government, states, and Appalachian 

communities. Low-cost efforts to understand state laws for 

telehealth and distance learning, for example, can begin to 

bridge a stronger understanding for all organizations involved 

on ways to advance policy to facilitate greater use of telehealth, 

distance learning, and access to digital class curricula. 

 

144 Tailoring of medical care, including prevention, diagnosis, and 

treatment, to individual characteristics and preferences. 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-11 

Table 8-5. Key Policy Issues for Applications of Broadband 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the 

Implications for ARC?

Legal Issues

Legal barriers 

to telemedicine 

A variety of legal barriers constrain (or 

facilitate) the use of telemedicine 

including, but not limited to:

 Cross-state barriers to telemedicine: 

Some states have decided to team 

up with each other to allow crossborder telemedicine. Ten state 

medical boards have issued 

specialized certificates or licenses for 

physicians to practice medicine 

across state borders through 

telehealth technology.a

 State parity laws for private 

insurance coverage: Telemedicine 

parity laws that are being 

implemented by states require 

private insurers to cover 

telemedicine-provided services 

comparable to that of in-person 

services. Twenty four states have 

enacted some form of telemedicine 

parity laws.b

 Medicaid policies: In December 2013 

the Center for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services proposed rule changes for 

physician fees to expand coverage 

for telehealth services. As of 2015, 

48 state Medicaid offices provide 

reimbursements for at least some 

telehealth services.c

 State employee health plans: 

Roughly half of state employee 

health plans include some level of 

coverage for telemedicine services. 

Given that most states self-insure, 

this is an area for improvement.d

Telemedicine can improve 

the quality of patient 

care, afford patients time 

savings and travel 

savings, decrease 

system- wide costs, and 

be used to more 

effectively monitor 

chronic illnesses. Until 

laws are rationalized at 

state, regional, and 

federal levels, the full 

benefits of telemedicine 

could be constrained.

Alabama and Tennessee 

are the only two ARC 

states that have issued 

specialized certificates for 

physicians to perform 

cross-state telehealth 

services.

Rural communities have 

the most to gain from 

continued growth in 

telemedicine services (or 

stand the most to lose 

from barriers that 

artificially limit 

telemedicine).

ARC could help pave the 

way for greater 

telemedicine practice by 

creating a working group 

on ways states can 

normalize telemedicine 

laws. Bringing together 

medical societies, hospital 

associations, medical 

schools, state health 

directors, and a 

representative of the 

federal government may 

help advance telehealth in 

the Appalachian Region. 

Service Delivery

e911 needs 

coordination 

with FirstNet

Police officers, firefighters, paramedics, 

and other public safety entities need a 

dedicated nationwide wireless broadband 

Internet network. After 9/11, a law was 

passed to enable this. NTIA is 

administering FirstNet.e

Today’s 9-1-1 systems support voicecentric communications only and are not 

designed to transfer and receive text 

messages, videos, or photos.

The next generation 9-1-1 rules, adopted 

January 15, 2015, by the FCC, seek to 

remedy this. 

Without greater 

coordination between 

next-generation 9-1-1 

and FirstNet, first 

responders and other 

public safety entities will 

be ill-prepared to respond 

to emergencies in rural 

regions. 

While multiple paths of 

development can be useful 

in early stages of 

developing nextgeneration technologies, 

this exposes ARC’s 

investments in public 

safety telecommunications 

systems to more risk.

To mitigate risk of making 

the wrong bet and 

minimize stranded 

investment, ARC could 

assign a staff person to 

monitor these two areas 

(in Washington meetings) 

(continued) 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-12

Table 8-5. Key Policy Issues for Applications of Broadband (continued) 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications 

for ARC?

and provide a blog on these 

activities to Appalachian 

regional public officials who 

have a “need to know” about 

the health and safety sectors.

Schools are 

shifting to 

digital curricula 

and etextbooks 

Schools at all levels are shifting 

more to digital delivery of 

content and e-textbooks. This 

includes online homework 

assignments that presume 

students have access to the 

Internet and online access to 

community colleges-dual 

enrollment classes.f

Those without access to the 

Internet at home will also lose 

access to books and 

coursework that is becoming 

standard in schools. Thus, 

these students will lack access

to resources that advance 

learning.

Some Internet providers, such 

as Comcast, have initiatives 

that offer lower-priced Internet 

services to families based on 

income levels. These programs 

are offered only in certain 

providers’ markets.

It is becoming more important 

to ensure that students and 

families have access to the 

Internet either at home or at 

the very least at accessible 

community anchor institutions.

A yearly survey of schools in 

the Appalachian Region might 

provide some action items for 

potential Requests for 

Proposals (RFPs) related to 

school technology issues and 

access to networks during 

afterschool hours.

Certification 

issues 

surrounding 

distance 

learning for 

teachers

Certification issues for online 

distance learning are not 

harmonized across states, 

sometimes causing difficulties 

for teachers who teach via 

satellite, which limits student 

access to courses. 

Distance learning offers the 

opportunity to gain new 

certifications for skills that 

allow people to work with 

future technologies, yet to be 

discovered. With digital 

communications becoming 

worldwide and educational 

institutions assuming a 

worldwide catchment area, this 

problem could be exacerbated. 

Further, a shrinking number of 

teachers in rural areas that 

may limit class options for 

rural students could be 

expanded through distance 

learning. 

ARC could work with the 

leaders of the education 

communities in their Region to 

assess teacher shortage issues 

and potential solutions with 

distance learning. A survey of 

ARC states’ education laws 

could help ARC review salient 

issues related to distance 

learning and inform ARC’s 

grantmaking accordingly. 

a

 Gruessner, Vera. May 6, 2015. “Laws Affect Adoption of Telemedicine Across State Borders.” mHealth 

Intelligence. Accessed at http://mhealthintelligence.com/news/laws-affect-adoption-of-telemedicine-acrossstate-borders on August 1, 2015. 

b Thomas, Latoya and Capistrant, Gary. May 2015. “State Telemedicine Gaps Analysis.” American Telemedicine 

Association. Accessed at http://www.americantelemed.org/docs/default-source/policy/50-state-telemedicinegaps-analysis---coverage-and-reimbursement.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

c

 Ibid. 

d

 Ibid. 

e

 FirstNet. Homepage. Accessed at http://firstnet.gov/ on August 1, 2015. 

f

 Many new organizations are springing up to look at the issue of digital learning. DigiLearn, a nonprofit with 

bipartisan board members and foundation support, defines its vision for education. “All learners fully prepared by 

an innovative culture of life-long learning to flourish as contributing citizens in an increasingly technology-driven 

world. Digital Learning Institute. Homepage. Accessed at http://www.digitallearninginstitute.org/ on August 1, 

2015. 

Source: RTI, Various. 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-13 

8.2.4 Broadband Availability Policy Issues 

Many programs are aimed at increasing the availability of 

broadband Internet at the national, state, and local levels. Of 

particular importance are the programs that offer funding to 

increase broadband Internet availability. These programs may 

be essential to broadband Internet availability (as is the case 

with the FCC’s E-rate program and CAF), and they shape how 

broadband Internet is offered through the program’s 

requirements. 

For example, the FCC recently offered funding to major Internet 

service providers to build out networks in remote areas across 

the county through the CAF program, but providers are only 

required to build out networks capable of reaching speeds of 10 

downstream/1 upstream Mbps. Going forward, ARC can monitor 

funding programs and advocate for program requirements that 

would enhance the availability of truly robust broadband 

Internet networks. 

In general, greater use and awareness about federal and state 

government funding opportunities may strengthen Appalachian 

communities’ access to outside resources. ARC can monitor the 

E-rate program to ascertain which of the Appalachian 

communities are using E-rate and offer grants to strategically 

complement E-rate resources. If funding for E-rate fluctuates, 

ARC can adjust its funding strategies to continue to maximize 

the FCC’s program to enhance opportunities for rural 

Appalachian communities to improve broadband Internet 

adoption for schools and libraries. Similarly, ARC can raise 

awareness through its telecommunications and technology 

portfolio about access to federal government funds to support 

broadband Internet. As these programs adjust in their resource 

allocation and guidelines, ARC can adjust its grantmaking to 

best complement existing resources (see Table 8-6). 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-14

Table 8-6. Policy Issues for Adoption of Broadband 

Policy Issue Summary Why Important Implications for ARC

E-rate Program An FCC program that 

helps schools and 

libraries obtain affordable 

broadband Internet. 

Discounts for support 

depend on poverty level 

and urban and rural 

location. Modernization of 

the fund took place in 

2015, which expanded 

connectivity and reach. It 

also allowed for more 

wireless services in 

classrooms.a

The degree to which 

the FCC adjusts the 

spending cap and 

requirements for E-rate 

will affect the ability of 

schools and libraries in 

low-income regions to 

access these resources 

for direct and indirect 

broadband Internet. 

ARC and the E-rate program 

have similar goals. ARC can 

monitor how E-rate is 

operating so that ARC can 

best complement E-rate’s 

activities with coinvestments 

in connectivity. ARC can also 

provide guidance to 

interested communities, 

schools, and libraries in the 

Appalachian Region. 

Awareness about 

federal and state 

funding for 

broadband 

Internet

When programs are being 

designed or modified, the 

FCC asks for specific 

input to shape the 

program. For example, 

the FCC is currently 

soliciting comments on 

whether and how to 

expand its “Lifeline” 

program, which could 

have a major impact on 

families in low-income 

rural areas.

When programs are 

underway, there is often 

a lack of understanding 

and information about 

funding opportunities for 

broadband Internet that 

exist across federal and 

state government.b

Groups seeking funding 

may not realize the 

extent of current U.S. 

government funding for 

broadband Internet and 

thus do not take 

advantage of 

opportunities to 

increase access.

Additionally, the FCC 

uses comments 

submitted during the 

designated comment

period to make rules 

and procedures for 

various funding 

programs.

ARC staff can track the 

comment periods for major 

funding programs and submit 

comments when appropriate.

ARC can also compile and 

disseminate information 

about funding opportunities 

to interested parties within 

the Appalachian Region.

b

Further, ARC can work with 

these funding agencies 

through semiannual meetings 

or other modes of 

communication to strengthen 

awareness about the needs of 

ARC and other rural 

communities. 

a

 FCC. June 30, 2014. “Answers to Common Questions about the E-Rate Modernization Proposal to Get Wi-Fi in ALL 

Schools and Libraries.” FCC Blog. Accessed at https://www.fcc.gov/blog/answers-common-questions-about-erate-modernization-proposal-get-wi-fi-all-schools-and-librarie on August 1, 2015. 

b

 As an example, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand compiles a list of U.S. government funding agencies and associated 

opportunities. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. 2015. “A Guide to Broadband Funding Opportunities: How to Navigate the 

Funding Process.” Accessed at 

http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gillibrand%20Broadband%20Funding% 

20Guidebook%202015.pdf on August 1, 2015. NTIA is also developing a comprehensive list of funding sources 

within the federal government. 

Source: RTI, Various. 

8.2.5 Broadband Adoption and Utilization Policy Issues 

Adoption and utilization policy issues affect the ability of 

communities to encourage greater use of broadband Internet in 

ways that maximize the benefits of that use. Adoption efforts 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-15 

may include digital literacy programs designed to encourage 

community members to take advantage of online education and 

training programs. Utilization efforts tend to focus on how 

individual users can take optimal advantage of the advanced 

communications technologies, depending on the user’s 

particular circumstances. For example, if the user is a business, 

utilization efforts may help the company use broadband 

Internet more effectively, by taking advantage of teleworking, 

eCommerce, online content delivery, and other means 

appropriate to that business.145 ARC could play a significant role 

in identifying ways for Appalachian communities to make the 

most of their existing connections. 

8.2.6 Cross-Cutting Broadband Internet Policy Issues 

Policies in this section are relevant to all functions of improving 

access to broadband Internet and the ability of communities to 

participate in the digital age. We summarize the role of public–

private partnerships, dig and wire once policies, net neutrality, 

legal harmonization, cyber security, and tax policies (see 

Table 8-7). These policy issues are deeply complex with many 

layers, intricacies, and invested stakeholders. We summarize 

them to highlight how each issue is at play for the Appalachian 

Region and why it is important for ARC to be mindful of these 

issues as it awards grants in the telecommunications and 

technology program. Greater understanding about the 

landscape of cross-cutting policy issues will leave ARC in a 

better position to target and adapt its investments for impact. 

 

145 Curri, Michael and Adams, Doug. No date. “Change Is Hard...So Is 

Utilization.” Strategic Network Group. Accessed at 

http://sngroup.com/tag/meaningful-broadband-use/ on August 1, 

2015.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-16

Table 8-7. Cross-Cutting Policy Issues 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications 

for ARC?

Net neutrality The concept that Internet 

service providers should not be 

able to block, slow, or 

otherwise manipulate open 

access to lawful content and 

devices. For example, several 

content companies, most 

notably Netflix, complained 

that Internet access providers 

were intentionally slowing or 

blocking their content because 

it was data intensive—or 

alternatively were charging 

more for an Internet “fast line.”

Net neutrality advocates 

argued this violated the spirit 

of an “open Internet” where 

content is delivered on a 

neutral basis. Some advocates 

of “network neutrality” refer to 

the concept as “open access” 

and claim that it also requires 

Internet service providers to 

make their networks available 

to other providers on a 

wholesale basis. The federal 

broadband Internet stimulus 

programs (BTOP and 

Broadband Initiatives Program) 

had such a requirement, but 

the FCC’s current Open 

Internet rules do not.

For years, the FCC and the 

courts have gone back and 

forth on how to enact open 

Internet rules. Most recently, 

the FCC elected to reclassify 

certain types of broadband 

Internet under Title II of the 

Communications Act of 1934.

Doing so gave the FCC more 

power to regulate broadband 

Internet services in order to 

impose open Internet rules, 

which require broadband 

Internet service providers to 

refrain from slowing and 

blocking content, etc. 

Although in the recent Open 

Internet Order the FCC 

declined to regulate most 

areas involving broadband 

Internet services, there is 

concern that the Order could 

ultimately lead to federal 

regulation of Internet prices

and access and require 

broadband Internet service 

providers to allow wholesale 

access to its networks.

The relationship between net 

neutrality and completion is 

also controversial. Advocates 

claim that requiring Internet 

service providers to make 

their networks available to 

others will enhance 

competition. Opponents claim 

that forced access 

discourages investment 

ultimately reduces 

competition or produces 

competition only low-quality 

services.

ARC can continue to support 

the core values and 

protections the Open Internet 

Rules currently provide but 

should continue to follow both 

sides of the debate. ARC is in

a position to provide useful 

clarifications about the Open 

Internet rules to consumers, 

communities, and potential 

service providers. 

(continued) 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-17 

Table 8-7. Cross-Cutting Policy Issues (continued) 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications 

for ARC?

Dig and wire 

once/Coinvestment

Practices that minimize the 

number and scale of 

excavations when installing 

telecommunications 

infrastructure in highway 

rights-of-way and other public 

and private development such 

as water/sewer systems, 

electric lines, new buildings,

and towers.a

Some municipalities are 

enacting “dig once” policies as 

a way to encourage more costeffective deployment of 

broadband Internet. Policies 

can include legally requiring 

developers to install open 

access conduits, partnering 

with contractors on installing 

open access conduits when 

other underground utilities are 

installed, and incorporating 

open access conduits when 

repairing or replacing 

underground utilities 

underneath roads and 

sidewalks. Additionally, some 

communities have gone a step 

further and laid fiber any time 

there was an underground 

infrastructure project.b

The largest cost for deploying 

broadband Internet is the 

construction phase—digging 

and burying fiber optic cables 

underground.

Careful planning, mapping of 

conduits, and communication 

with telecommunications 

providers about conduit 

locations is essential. 

Proponents believe “dig once” 

is one of the more simple 

solutions to decreasing the 

costs of deploying broadband 

Internet. It can also can cut 

the costs of all utility 

deployments, not just 

broadband Internet

deployments.c

Communities that have laid 

fiber during other 

infrastructure constructions 

have also been attractive to 

private-sector investors.d

There are opportunities for 

ARC to meet with 

county/state/municipal 

officials in the Appalachian 

Region and begin a dialogue 

on the “dig once” policy. In 

addition, educational 

materials and draft legislation 

from other municipalities and 

county governments could be 

shared as models. In the 

mountainous regions of 

Appalachia, “dig once” also 

has a positive effect on the 

environment. Duplicate 

digging through rock and 

stony soils and across 

mountain streams for utilities 

placement has the potential 

for increased environmental 

damage.

(continued) 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-18

Table 8-7. Cross-Cutting Policy Issues (continued) 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications 

for ARC?

Local choice 

community 

networks

Legal barriers, often at the 

state level, make it difficult for 

communities in some ARC 

states to play a meaningful role 

in broadband Internet

deployment.

Local choice is the principle 

that local communities should 

have the authority to make 

choices about the best 

broadband Internet

infrastructure for their 

communities, including working 

with willing incumbents, owning 

networks, or working with a 

private partner.e

Recently, there has been 

much debate and legal 

activity regarding this issue, 

yet the ability of communities 

to exercise local choice 

remains uncertain. 

Approximately 20 states have 

legal measures that limit the 

ability of municipalities to 

invest in or expand highspeed broadband Internet

networks because of concerns 

about the public sector 

competing with the private 

sector and limiting public 

exposure if a network is 

unsuccessful. Local choice 

advocates believe that the 

private sector has failed to 

make adequate investments 

in many rural communities 

and that the communities 

themselves can play a 

significant role in rectifying 

such market failures.f

Appalachian communities

need more specific education 

on the options available to 

underserved communities, 

including attracting private 

partners, planning, funding, 

and managing community. 

ARC can provide educational 

opportunities for these 

communities through regional 

sessions where these issues 

are discussed and debated. A 

good example of a textbook 

on these issues is a handbook 

like the New Mexico 

Community Broadband 

Guidebook.

g

Community network planning 

must be representative of 

potential large users, 

technologists, funding 

specialists, local government 

both county and municipal 

planners, influential leaders, 

and organizations (e.g., 

realtors).

Cybersecurity/

privacy of data

Practices, policies, and 

technologies that protect 

computers, networks, 

programs, and data from 

unintended or unauthorized 

access, change, or destruction.h

As the world becomes more 

interconnected in general, 

data security and privacy will 

be a growing concern for all 

users of the Internet—

households, businesses, 

community anchor 

institutions, and 

governments. If Internet 

users think data privacy is 

compromised, the types of 

Internet applications that 

people are willing to use could 

be limited. 

As ARC makes investments in 

the telecommunications and 

technology portfolio, it will 

need to consider how 

conducive infrastructure, 

equipment, operating 

software, and applications will 

be for the evolving needs for 

greater cyber-security and 

data privacy.

Educational sessions on 

cybersecurity practices and 

data privacy laws and their 

implementation and practice 

will be important in a region 

such as Appalachia. 

 (continued) 
Section 8 — Policy Issues 

8-19 

Table 8-7. Cross-Cutting Policy Issues (continued) 

Policy Issue What Is It? Why Is It Important?

What Are the Implications 

for ARC?

Tax policy Tax policy at the federal, state, 

and local levels is not optimized 

to fully support broadband 

Internet deployment and 

uptake. 

Tax policy can have 

significant impacts on the 

behavior of markets; thus 

making it easier or more 

difficult to provide, access, 

and benefit from the Internet. 

ARC can survey the ARC 

states and see if there are 

incentives and disincentives 

built into their tax policies. A 

review of the ARC states 

could also note the 

investment from state 

budgets for the past few 

years. A document of 

effective tax policies across 

ARC states could spur the 

'copycat principle' whereby 

states with less effective tax 

policies adopt more effective 

tax policies from other ARC 

states.

Broadband 

Opportunities 

Council 

A White House initiative 

bringing together over 25 

federal departments and 

agencies to devise ways to 

support communities seeking 

broadband Internet investment 

and deployment. 

The Broadband Opportunities 

Council recently published an 

initial report listing the ways 

the federal government can 

encourage investment in 

community broadband 

Internet, coordinate to 

encourage broadband 

Internet deployment, or 

reduce federal barriers that 

make broadband Internet

deployment more difficult.

ARC can develop a 

relationship with the 

Broadband Opportunities 

Council to provide the Council 

with its perspective on 

broadband Internet

deployment and adoption. 

a Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Policy Studies. October 2013. “Minimizing Excavation 

Through Coordination.” Accessed at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/policy_brief_dig_once.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

b Dale, Bradley. Aug. 24, 2015. “Google Fiber and AT&T Like Cities That Lay Fiber, Public IT Veteran Says; Gail 

Roper Did Work in Kansas City, Austin, and Raleigh that Made Each City More Attractive to Google Fiber.” The 

Observer. Accessed at http://observer.com/2015/08/google-fiber-and-att-like-cities-that-lay-fiber-public-itveteran-says/ on August 1, 2015. 

c Center for Innovative Technology. No date. “Broadband Policy Assessment.” Accessed at 

http://www.wired.virginia.gov/ 

wp-content/uploads/Broadband/Virginia-Resources/Policy-Assessment-Tool-Guide.pdf on August 1, 2015.

d Dale, Bradley. Aug. 24, 2015. “Google Fiber and AT&T Like Cities That Lay Fiber, Public IT Veteran Says; Gail 

Roper Did Work in Kansas City, Austin, and Raleigh that Made Each City More Attractive to Google Fiber.” The 

Observer. Accessed at http://observer.com/2015/08/google-fiber-and-att-like-cities-that-lay-fiber-public-itveteran-says/ on August 1, 2015. 

e Coalition for Local Internet Choice. Homepage. Accessed at http://www.localnetchoice.org/on August 1, 2015; 

The Executive Office of the President. January 2015. “Community-based Broadband Solutions.” Accessed at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/communitybased_broadband_report_by_executive_office_of_the_president.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

f Wyatt, Edward. November 9, 2014. “Communities Fight State Laws That Can Divide Broadband Access.” New York 

Times. Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/technology/in-rural-america-challenging-a-roadblockto-high-speed-internet.html?_r=0 on August 1, 2015. 

g New Mexico Department of Information Technology. March 2013. “Community Broadband Master Plan 

Guidebook.” Accessed at http://www.ctcnet.us/NewMexicoCommunityGuidebook.pdf on August 1, 2015.

h

University of Maryland University College. No date. “Cyber Security Primer.” Accessed at 

http://www.umuc.edu/cybersecurity/about/cybersecurity-basics.cfm on August 1, 2015. 

Source: RTI, Various. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

8-20

Even a brief summary of cross-cutting issues facing broadband 

Internet access, provision, and deployment underscores the 

hyperdynamic policy environment for the organizations, 

agencies, and individuals involved. The stakes are high, with 

significant potential for winners and losers to emerge. Certain 

policy directions could make it much easier or much more 

difficult for rural communities to access and use broadband 

Internet. Some of the cross-cutting issues such as dig and wire 

once policies and public–private partnerships will be driven at 

the local and state levels, while other issues, such as net 

neutrality, will be dealt with at the federal level. ARC can stay 

abreast of these issues at all levels and monitor how the Region 

will be affected by rules and regulations as they unfold. ARC 

can navigate this volatile policy climate and adjust its course for 

investment in broadband Internet and its applications and 

adoption accordingly. 

8.3 SUMMARY 

In many ways, the contexts in which ARC grants will be made 

in the future will be fundamentally different and more complex 

than the contexts in the past, creating the need for ARC to take 

a more proactive role in providing stakeholder communities 

with the information and tools they will need to successfully 

adapt the power of broadband Internet to improve their 

prospects. Given some of the uncertainty in the policy 

environment, ARC will need to mitigate risk and adjust course 

as it monitors policy developments at the local, state, and 

federal levels. Recommendations on this and other topics are 

more fully developed in Section 9. 
9-1 

Findings and 

Recommendations 

The Internet pervades every aspect of our lives and is changing 

every field of work. As businesses, workers, and households 

become dependent on information technology and being 

connected to the Internet, the more important it becomes to 

address and eliminate digital divide issues. As discussed in 

Section 2, these issues are more severe in the rural and 

economically disadvantaged communities served by ARC. It is 

critical to provide high-capacity, advanced broadband Internet 

and develop the capacity of individuals and organizations to 

effectively use the Internet so that all aspects of community 

economic development—health, education, training, business 

development, governance, and civic capacity—can be 

enhanced. 

ARC’s 2004 through 2010 telecommunications and technology 

program that funded over 300 projects was designed to help 

ARC address these precise issues and challenges. In this last 

section of the report, we synthesize the findings and 

conclusions from this evaluation and offer recommendations for 

ARC and other interested organizations to continue to positively 

affect rural regions through both broadband Internet 

deployment and supportive activities into the future.

In this section, we relay the themes, findings, and conclusions 

that emerged from the evaluation. We build on the literature 

review (Section 4) about the role of broadband Internet for 

community economic development and how it is evolving, the 

detailed analysis of the ARC grant portfolio (Section 5), survey 

findings (Section 6), case studies (Section 7), and the review 

of the policy landscape (Section 8) to offer overall findings and 

recommendations. The themes that surfaced fall within three 

main categories. We organized our findings and 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-2 

recommendations within these categories and discuss them 

further in subsections below so that policy makers and rural 

community economic development advocates can more readily 

connect their work to broader issues. The three overarching 

categories are as follows: 

(1) Present and Future of Broadband Internet 

– Deployment 

– Adoption and utilization 

(2) Pressing Needs for the Appalachian Region 

– Telehealth 

– Education and workforce 

– Job creation 

(3) The Role of ARC Moving Forward 

– A nexus for information 

– A streamlined grant operator 

The findings and recommendations are meant to be guidance 

rather than prescriptions. Ultimately, ARC has limited resources 

and its member states are faced with difficult decisions about 

how to best prioritize ARC investments across all ARC program 

areas (e.g., education, health, energy) and within the 

telecommunications and technology program to address 

competing needs of ARC-designated counties. This evaluation 

acknowledges that ARC and other entities operating in the 

Region are faced with difficult decisions about trade-offs for 

investment in areas with great demands yet finite resources to 

meet those needs. We recognize that under current funding 

levels, ARC is not positioned to act on all of these 

recommendations. Instead, our intent in this section is to lay 

out the spectrum of actionable items and important issues that 

rural telecom and telecommunications organizations and rural 

community and economic development advocates, including 

entities like ARC, can focus ideas for investing resources in 

ways that have the most potential for long-lasting impacts. 

We discuss each of these three thematic areas and underscore 

specific findings and recommendations within these overarching 

topics. 

We recognize that under 

current funding levels, 

ARC is not positioned to 

act on all of these recommendations. Instead, our 

intent in this section is to 

lay out the spectrum of 

actionable items and 

important issues that 

rural telecom and 

telecommunications 

organizations and rural 

community and economic 

development advocates, 

including entities like 

ARC, can focus ideas for 

investing resources in 

ways that have the most 

potential for long-lasting 

impacts.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-3 

9.1 PRESENT AND FUTURE OF BROADBAND 

INTERNET 

The first theme that captures findings and recommendations 

from the evaluation relates to examining the present and future 

of deployment and use of broadband Internet. This theme is 

important because how broadband Internet is deployed is 

complex and changing rapidly. We describe the related issues 

and ideas for action first for broadband Internet deployment 

and then broadband Internet adoption. 

9.1.1 Deployment 

Broadband Internet deployment surfaced as a significant issue 

throughout this evaluation. The research shows that broadband 

Internet availability has increased significantly since 2004 when 

ARC began its grantmaking for the associated portfolio under 

evaluation. Yet, as we demonstrate in the literature review 

(Section 4), the needs and uses of broadband Internet are 

surging and outpace availability. Identifying ways to deploy 

broadband Internet more efficiently, at competitive prices to 

rural users, and of a standard and speed that ensure 

performance will be critical for ARC and others to focus on. 

Three dimensions within broadband Internet deployment relay 

the types of challenges and opportunities for increasing 

broadband Internet availability: 

 competitive markets 

 last mile or extending broadband Internet to households 

 network infrastructure technologies 

We discuss the findings and recommendations for each of these 

points below. 

Competitive Markets 

Finding #1: Broadband Internet access has increased in 

the Appalachian Region, but it has not kept pace with 

demands. The private sector alone cannot deploy 

broadband Internet at price points that rural markets 

can pay. New business models are needed to provide 

broadband Internet. 

Recommendation #1: Although ARC cannot award grants 

to private companies to make deployments in rural areas 

more attractive, ARC and others can help rural 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-4 

communities develop innovative approaches to obtaining 

the advanced communications capabilities they need. 

ARC can help educate communities about the various 

models that are emerging across the United States 

today—including working with willing incumbents, 

establishing public–private partnerships, working with a 

municipal or cooperative electric utility, working with 

telephone cooperatives, and many more. ARC and others 

can educate communities by gathering and 

disseminating relevant information; conducting 

seminars, webinars, and workshops; and connecting 

interested communities to other communities that have 

launched successful initiatives and to knowledgeable 

public and other organizations. 

“Local choice” is the principle that communities should have the 

right to play a major role in selecting the broadband Internet 

model that best meets their community’s needs. Hundreds of 

communities across the United States have successfully 

embraced some form of local choice.146 In particular, 

communities are increasingly turning to public–private 

partnerships as a model for broadband Internet deployment. 

Public–private partnerships between a combination of local 

government, the private sector, and nonprofit organizations can 

offer innovative approaches to increasing broadband Internet 

access when the private sector alone is not meeting demand. 

Despite the fact that ARC cannot award grants to a private 

company, ARC can encourage grantees to learn about these 

innovative models as potential solutions for communities to 

expand their networks. 

Communities may also find it useful to work with Electric 

Cooperative Associations and municipal electric utilities to 

deploy broadband Internet. Municipal electric utilities were 

deploying fiber to entire communities years before the private 

sector did, and they often have the technical expertise, 

infrastructure, and ethic of universal service necessary to make 

a broadband Internet network a good investment. One way for 

ARC and others to contribute to this potential is to review 

 

146 See the Community Broadband Networks Community Network Map. 

Accessed at http://muninetworks.org/communitymap on August 26, 

2015.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-5 

communities, using the National Broadband Map,147 within their 

Region that do not have networks that support the minimum 

speeds that the FCC classifies as “broadband”—currently at 

least 25 megabits per second down and 3 megabits per second 

up. Then ARC member states can work with relevant co-ops or 

municipal electric utilities to assess their willingness to offer 

broadband Internet services. 

ARC is also well positioned to hold informal or formal learning 

sessions to explore this potential model. With a collection of 

information about how other communities have created 

successful co-op models, interested stakeholders including the 

electric co-op could explore potential options for greater 

deployment. If there is an indication of feasibility, ARC member 

states can follow up with a more detailed planning session such 

as a charrette148 to craft a model that best suits the community 

and all parties involved. 

Finding #2: Competitive markets ensure rural 

communities have a choice in broadband Internet 

providers, thus leveraging market forces to increase 

options, improve affordability, and drive down costs for 

consumers. 

As a result of low population density and difficult topography, 

the Appalachian Region faces challenges in attracting service 

providers to deploy broadband Internet. Policies and practices 

that further limit the availability of multiple service providers in 

rural areas will make it more challenging for rural communities 

to access affordable quality broadband Internet. 

Recommendation #2: ARC can continue to monitor the 

policy environment and local community practices to 

better ensure market competition in rural Appalachian 

communities. 

At the state level, legal barriers can constrain community 

initiatives to accelerate broadband Internet deployment and 

promote competition. These laws can have significant adverse 

implications for the Appalachian Region’s ability to deploy 

broadband Internet more effectively. On the positive side, local 

 

147 National Broadband Map. Accessed at 

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about on August 26, 2015. 

148 The Town Paper. No date. “What is a Charrette?” Accessed at 

http://www.tndtownpaper.com/what_is_charrette.htm on August 

26, 2015. 

Policies and practices 

that further limit the 

availability of multiple 

service providers in rural 

areas will make it more 

challenging for rural 

communities to access 

affordable quality 

broadband Internet.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-6 

dig and wire once policies are beginning to take hold around 

the country, making it easier for broadband Internet service 

providers to consider investment in communities they might 

have previously considered too costly. With the significantly 

lowered costs of not having to pay to dig to lay the fiber, 

service providers find the lowered costs “market friendly” and 

thus more inviting for investment. This is spurring potential 

broadband Internet service providers to enter communities with 

sparser populations with difficult topographies that are now 

considered “fiber-ready.”

ARC, its member states, local communities, and other rural 

advocates will be better prepared to position their Region for 

broadband Internet deployment if they stay aware of the status 

of policies that either limit or encourage greater service 

provision in rural regions. 

Last Mile 

Last mile connectivity is a second issue important to broadband 

Internet deployment that surfaced in our research. Last mile 

deployment refers to reaching a network to homes, businesses, 

and other end users. Last mile connectivity can be particularly 

difficult in in rural areas because of the difficult terrain and low 

population density. 

Finding #3: Deploying broadband Internet to households 

is difficult and expensive, yet the need for this 

infrastructure is significant with similarly significant 

implications for the economic competitiveness and wellbeing of rural Appalachian residents. 

Deploying broadband Internet to households is often expensive 

and can be difficult to achieve, especially in rural areas with 

sparse populations and difficult topographies. According to the 

survey respondents, extending broadband Internet 

infrastructure to households is an important need—68 percent 

of respondents who responded to a question about 

infrastructure needs cited last mile as one of their top concerns. 

Recommendation #3: ARC should make last mile 

connectivity a priority in its education efforts to member 

states and relevant communities and, if possible, 

prioritize last mile in its grantmaking. 

ARC, its member states, 

local communities, and 

other rural advocates will 

be better prepared to 

position their Region for 

broadband Internet 

deployment if they stay 

aware of the status of 

policies that either limit 

or encourage greater 

service provision in rural 

regions.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-7 

ARC and other stakeholders can conduct a low-effort 

assessment of its member states and the regions within those 

states about status of last mile connectivity using FCC’s data so 

that regions without access can be prioritized for ARC grants. 

Network Infrastructure Technologies 

Broadband Internet networks are evolving with transitions like 

shifting from copper to fiber and robust wireless networks. This 

infrastructure evolution is occurring against the backdrop of 

broader trends such as the exponential growth in the number of 

connected devices, reliance on cloud computing, and 

proliferation of mobile device penetration (see Section 4.3 and 

Section 8.2). These kinds of factors will be important when 

communities consider the kinds of last mile investments that 

will be most beneficial for them in the long term. 

Finding #4: The technologies for broadband Internet 

networks are evolving rapidly as are demands on the 

broadband Internet infrastructure. 

In the RTI survey, respondents cited that their biggest future 

need for broadband Internet infrastructure is technology 

upgrades. Seventy percent of respondents to this question said 

that infrastructure investment to support faster broadband 

Internet speeds and service was a top priority for their 

community. 

Recommendation #4: ARC must monitor the technology 

evolution to avoid investing in short-term solutions or 

legacy technologies. 

In this ever-changing technology evolution for broadband 

Internet, it is difficult to keep pace with the most appropriate 

technology investments for long-term impacts. For example, 

some existing wireless and copper cable systems are ill 

equipped and unable to meet future demands. Despite higher 

start-up costs, high-capacity fiber, fiber to the premises, and 

last mile technologies are proven to have a greater effect and 

longer lifespan than alternative transmission technologies, such 

as copper. ARC, member states, and communities can be savvy 

investors in broadband Internet with technical advisement on 

the most appropriate technologies for long-lasting deployment. 

ARC can serve as a clearinghouse of information for its 

communities, including providing information about the 

This infrastructure 

evolution is occurring 

against the backdrop of 

broader trends such as 

the exponential growth in 

the number of connected 

devices, reliance on cloud 

computing, and 

proliferation of mobile 

device penetration.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-8 

strengths and weaknesses of current and emerging 

technologies. 

9.1.2 Adoption and Utilization 

Adoption and utilization are the next components of 

deployment that emerged in our research. Availability, or 

deployment, is a prerequisite for adoption, as discussed above 

in Section 9.2.1. Once broadband Internet is available in an 

area, the major factors important for greater adoption that are 

most relevant to this evaluation are affordability, quality, and 

digital literacy. 

Affordability and Quality 

Affordability issues (the price that end consumers pay) 

associated with broadband Internet service are closely tied to 

deployment issues. Affordability and quality are relevant for 

rural and urban areas alike, but these issues are often more 

pronounced in rural areas for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, 

prices for broadband Internet services in rural areas are similar 

to prices in urban areas but are at a lower level of quality 

(speed, reliability, bandwidth). 

Finding #5: Affordability of quality broadband Internet 

services continues to be a barrier for the Appalachian 

Region. 

Survey respondents ranked “lower monthly broadband Internet 

fees for consumers” as the top need their community faces 

related to better broadband Internet adoption (69 percent of 

respondents answered this question, or 69 out of 100). The 

limitations of the private sector’s ability to provide affordable 

quality broadband Internet coupled with a hyperdynamic policy 

environment present a complex setting for organizations like 

ARC to best invest in rural broadband Internet. However, this 

fluctuating time also offers options for creative partnering and 

policy changes that can strengthen the availability of affordable 

and quality broadband Internet in rural communities. 

Recommendation #5: ARC can encourage practices such 

as “dig once,” policies such as local choice, and public–

private deployments to help promote lower costs and 

greater competition for affordable, quality broadband 

Internet. 

Once broadband Internet

is available in an area,

the major factors 

important for greater 

adoption that are most 

relevant to this evaluation 

are affordability, quality, 

and digital literacy.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-9 

As ARC and member states review infrastructure plans in the 

Region, they can encourage such plans to incorporate a 

communications infrastructure installation when 

groundbreaking occurs for other utility work. This is one way to 

help lower the costs of broadband Internet installation. ARC can 

also encourage practices and policies that ensure open and 

competitive markets in rural communities. 

Digital Literacy 

Digital literacy, also referred to as digital readiness, is one of 

the key indicators of whether an individual will adopt broadband 

Internet and be able to use it to its full potential. 

Finding #6: There is a digital literacy gap between urban 

and rural areas. 

Digital literacy was the second most highly ranked need for the 

Appalachian Region in terms of adoption (56 percent of 

respondents). Without digital literacy it is difficult to get 

libraries, schools, hospitals, businesses, and households to take 

full advantage of the information age. 

Recommendation #6: ARC should continue to invest in 

digital literacy programs. 

To maximize uptake of broadband Internet service, ARC can 

continue to complement investments in infrastructure with 

efforts to increase the digital literacy of ARC residents. In the 

2004 through 2010 portfolio of grants, most investments in 

digital literacy focused on school-age children and job training. 

These are highly valuable areas to focus on. In addition, it 

would be useful to consider investing in the digital literacy of 

older populations since the population in the Appalachian 

Region tends to be older on average. One way to accomplish 

this would be to train librarians so that they could then share 

that knowledge with older residents in the community through 

training sessions and classes, for instance. 

As these adoption strategies continue to be established, there 

are ways to enhance utilization of a network—for businesses, 

governments, individual users, and more. ARC and others can 

continue to play a role in identifying ways to improve utilization 

for various end users and work with its member communities to 

implement these utilization programs. 

As ARC and member 

states review infrastructure plans in the Region, 

they can encourage such 

plans to incorporate a 

communications infrastructure installation 

when groundbreaking 

occurs for other utility 

work. This is one way to 

help lower the costs of 

broadband Internet 

installation.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-10

9.2 PRESSING NEEDS FOR THE REGION 

Three pressing needs for community economic development 

emerged from our evaluation that are deeply rooted in the 

infrastructure and enabling capabilities of broadband Internet. 

They are the need for telehealth, education and workforce 

training, and job creation. 

9.2.1 Telehealth 

Residents in the Appalachian Region are typically in poorer 

health, are older, and experience higher rates of poverty than 

more urban areas. Lack of affordable quality health care 

exacerbates these conditions. Therefore, Appalachian 

communities have the most to gain from telehealth services, 

which help expand health care access, improve the quality of 

patient care, afford patients time savings and travel savings, 

reduce costs for health systems, and provide training to allied 

health professionals. 

Finding #7: A suite of legal barriers limits the benefits 

that telemedicine could have on the Region. 

The myriad of laws at the state, regional, and federal levels 

make it more challenging for physicians to practice 

telemedicine, thus limiting its potential to reach rural patients. 

Some examples of the legal barriers to telehealth include issues 

for cross-state telehealth networks, state laws that do not 

require private insurance providers to cover telehealth services, 

complex Medicaid policies, and state employee health plans 

that lack telehealth coverage. 

Recommendation #7: ARC can continue and enhance 

information sharing with rural broadband Internet 

stakeholders about best practices for harmonizing laws, 

policies, and regulations. 

Some communities are making headway in harmonizing laws 

and policies to facilitate rural telemedicine practice. ARC could 

help advance telehealth in the Appalachian Region by creating a 

working group to study ways states can normalize telemedicine 

laws by convening groups of key individuals from medical 

societies, hospital associations, medical schools, state health 

directors, and the federal government. 

Three pressing needs for 

community economic 

development emerged 

from our evaluation that 

are deeply rooted in the 

infrastructure and 

enabling capabilities of 

broadband Internet. They 

are the need for 

telehealth, education and 

workforce training, and 

job creation.

The myriad of laws at the 

state, regional, and 

federal levels make it 

more challenging for 

physicians to practice 

telemedicine, thus 

limiting its potential to 

reach rural patients.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-11 

9.2.2 Education and Workforce 

Ensuring quality education and workforce training is highly 

valued among most communities and regions because 

education and training are fundamental building blocks for 

healthy and vibrant societies. These needs are even greater in 

rural regions because of the lower levels of wealth, more 

sparsely population regions, and fewer job (and training) 

opportunities. Broadband Internet is an extraordinary enabler 

that reduces the degree to which these obstacles of distance 

and access negatively affect students and workers eager to 

learn. 

Finding #8: Education and workforce training remain 

essential concerns for the Appalachian Region. At the 

same time, broader trends across the country indicate a 

greater reliance on broadband Internet for delivering 

educational content. 

Residents in Appalachia are less educated than average,149

while educational content is increasingly being delivered via the 

Internet across the country. Modern classrooms use the 

Internet reliant to access digital content such as online videos, 

digital textbooks, and web-based assessments. Distance 

learning programs enhance students’ education by providing 

opportunities to access teachers and subjects outside of their 

school walls. Expanding broadband Internet access has 

significant implications for rural schools that are often 

constrained in the number of teachers and courses they can 

offer. 

Additionally, e-learning will play a vital role in supporting 

lifelong learning outside of formal educational settings. The 

growth of free and low-cost courses offered on the web by 

universities and private companies like Coursera has opened up 

a world of opportunities for people around the globe. Massive 

open online courses are a potentially disruptive online learning 

model that challenges the status quo in higher education. 

 

149 According to 2009 through 2013 ARC data, the percentages of U.S. 

adults completing their high school diploma and bachelor’s degree 

were 86.0% and 28.8%, respectively. The percentages of adults in 

the Appalachian Region were 84.6% and 21.7%, respectively. Refer 

to http://www.arc.gov/reports/custom_report.asp?REPORT_ID=61

for more granular statistics by state and county. 

Broadband Internet is an 

extraordinary enabler 

that reduces the degree to 

which these obstacles of 

distance and access 

negatively affect students 

and workers eager to 

learn.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-12

Recommendation #8: Continued support of education 

and workforce development through broadband Internet 

investments is critical. Also, ARC can play a coordinating 

role in educating communities about other federal 

programs that support education and workforce 

development like the FCC’s E-rate program. 

ARC focused much of the 2004 through 2010 grant portfolio on 

projects that directly affected K–12 schools, teachers, 

community colleges, universities, and job training facilities 

using investments that spanned the broadband Internet 

technology spectrum such as Internet access, networking 

equipment, computers and devices for schools, curriculum 

development, teacher training, and worker training. A sustained 

focus on education and workforce training that encourages 

digital literacy across communities will complement efforts 

focused on the deployment end of the spectrum. ARC can also 

help communities even without granting them money by 

organizing and disseminating information about other 

programs, resources, and funding opportunities. For example, 

the FCC’s E-rate program is an important resource that schools 

should be aware of, and as Finding #12 discusses, ARC can 

play a role as an information broker for E-rate and other 

programs. Specifically with E-rate, ARC can focus on helping 

communities obtain E-rate monies they need to deploy fiber 

broadband Internet access to schools and to retrofit classrooms 

with wireless equipment. 

9.2.3 Job Creation 

Finding #9: Communities in the Appalachian Region are 

less satisfied with job opportunities than other aspects 

of life. Broadband Internet access and speeds have a 

proven connection to increased economic development, 

and ICT jobs are a driver for the U.S. economy. 

A sustained focus on 

education and workforce 

training that encourages 

digital literacy across 

communities will 

complement efforts 

focused on the 

deployment end of the 

spectrum.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-13 

Job satisfaction in the Region was ranked lowest among other 

dimensions of everyday life satisfaction measures, according to 

our survey results (see Figure 6-12). Our survey finding is 

consistent with unemployment and wage data. Unemployment 

rates in the Region tend to be slightly higher than the rest of 

the country,150 and average pay tends to be considerably lower. 

Broadband Internet can help alleviate some of these economic 

challenges by enabling business growth through new markets 

and education and training opportunities for new kinds of jobs. 

Businesses have found that the Internet is a meaningful 

platform for communicating with customers, delivering 

services, and managing business processes. Furthermore, ICT 

jobs are in demand and pay more than the national average. 

Recommendation #9: ARC, communities, and states can 

collaborate to develop clear and stronger messages 

about broadband Internet’s connection to building a 

more competitive economy. 

ARC can help link the importance of broadband Internet to job 

creation by developing clear messages about this connection 

and seeding this information with its member states and 

regions. ARC can also require stronger communication elements 

within their grants that will help grantees build community buyin (see Recommendation #13) and simultaneously build greater 

community awareness about the importance of broadband

Internet to community vitality, including job creation. 

9.3 THE ROLE OF ARC MOVING FORWARD 

Between 2004 and 2010, many of ARC’s investments in 

telecommunications and technology were forward thinking in 

what was then an also rapidly evolving industry. We commend 

ARC for embracing this endeavor and investing in pilot projects 

that were unproven at the time. Looking to the future, ARC will 

continue to work in a dynamic time for the telecommunications 

industry, in which these types of investments will no longer be 

considered a novelty or luxury, but fundamental infrastructure 

necessary for development and well-being of the Region’s

 

150 According to 2013 ARC data, the U.S. unemployment rate was 

7.4% compared with the Appalachian Region unemployment rate of 

7.6%. Refer to 

http://www.arc.gov/reports/custom_report.asp?REPORT_ID=61 for 

more granular statistics by state and county. 

Job satisfaction in the 

Region was ranked lowest 

among other dimensions 

of everyday life 

satisfaction measures,

according to our survey 

results

Broadband Internet can 

help alleviate some of 

these economic 

challenges by enabling 

business growth through 

new markets and 

education and training 

opportunities for new 

kinds of jobs.

Looking to the future, 

ARC will continue to 

work in a dynamic time 

for the 

telecommunications 

industry, in which these 

types of investments will 

no longer be considered a 

novelty or luxury, but

fundamental 

infrastructure necessary 

for development and wellbeing of the Region’s 

residents.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-14

residents. ARC can continue to be an effective contributor in 

this space through its grantmaking. ARC also has the potential 

to augment its role in rural broadband Internet deployment by 

adopting two practices: (1) playing a greater role as an 

information broker among Appalachian communities and 

interested parties and (2) streamlining and standardizing grant 

operations. These two recommendations are explained below in 

more detail. We offer these ideas as realistic, actionable items 

for ARC to consider. We also understand that these efforts may 

require additional resources for the telecommunications and 

technology program, which may not be feasible. Regardless, it 

is important to specify ideas for action so that progress can be 

made to the extent that resources allow. 

9.3.1 ARC as an Information Nexus 

ARC is well positioned to continue to be a real-time information 

nexus for communities in the Appalachian Region. ARC can 

engage in fact finding, monitor policies, and coordinate across 

agencies and other organizations for the benefit of communities 

that desire to improve their broadband Internet infrastructure. 

Finding #10: Information that is current, comprehensive, 

and inclusive of the spectrum of possibilities and that 

accounts for current policies and regulations is valuable 

to project leaders in the field. 

Our case studies revealed that there is continued interest 

among Appalachian communities in (1) having access to 

information such as best practice models, sources of financial 

and technical assistance, and other federal programming that 

helps communities better deploy and adopt broadband Internet 

and (2) gaining a better understanding of changes to the legal 

and regulatory framework and how those changes will affect 

their use of broadband Internet for economic and community 

development. Although ARC currently provides these services, 

with additional resources or partners, ARC can augment its 

function as an information nexus to increase its reach to 

relevant communities, the types of issues covered, and the 

frequency of information sharing. 

If ARC is a more proactive information broker, ARC member 

states and communities can become better positioned to make 

more beneficial decisions about broadband Internet-related 

investments. 

Our case studies revealed 

that there is continued 

interest among 

Appalachian communities 

in (1) having access to 

information such as best 

practice models, sources 

of financial and technical 

assistance, and other 

federal programming that 

helps communities better 

deploy and adopt 

broadband Internet
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-15 

Recommendation #10: With more resources, ARC can 

augment its efforts to discover information, monitor 

policy developments, and share that information with its 

stakeholders. 

ARC already functions as an information nexus. Priorities and 

concerns are shared among ARC-designated local development 

districts, state representatives, and the Commission, and 

grants and other information resources are transferred back to 

communities. ARC can elevate its role as an information nexus 

by increasing the following efforts: 

 Information discovery: ARC can build on its 

partnerships with federal agencies, regional universities, 

and research centers to collect and relay the most upto-date data on 

– broadband Internet access and adoption in 

Appalachian counties, 

– other existing funding programs in place, such as 

E-rate, 

– state and local policies that help or hinder telehealth 

and e-learning, and 

– resources such as relevant toolkits, such as the NTIA 

primer on public–private partnerships.151

 Monitoring policy and program developments: ARC 

can liaise more frequently with federal agencies, such as 

FCC, NTIA, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department 

of Education, HUD, and USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, 

and providers to continue to stay abreast of 

developments in ongoing and future programming for 

broadband Internet and the variety of policies 

influencing broadband Internet deployment and 

adoption. When formal announcements are made, ARC 

can continue to serve as an information clearinghouse 

by making updates available to communities in its 

service area. 

 

151 National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 

January 2015. BroadbandUSA: An Introduction to Effective PublicPrivate Partnerships for Broadband Investments. Accessed at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_ppp_010515.pdf

on August 26, 2015 and on adoption best practices: National 

Telecommunications & Information Administration. May 2013. NTIA 

Broadband Adoption Toolkit. Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/toolkit_042913.pdf on August 26, 

2015.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-16

 A model for learning and information diffusion:

ARC and its member states and communities can build 

on efforts for virtual and in-person working groups as a 

real-time way to collect and disseminate information on

priority areas such as health care, education and 

workforce training, and web-based tools for government 

services to identify issues, best practices, and 

opportunities for partnering. ARC and its member states 

and communities can also partner with the research 

community to hold policy briefings on deploying 

broadband Internet infrastructure, the various 

technology options to deploy (for example, whether 

aerial or buried), and key items to include in planning 

for broadband Internet deployment. Examples of best 

practices can be shared with municipal, county, and 

state officials in the Appalachian Region. Finally, mobile 

broadband Internet’s strengths and weaknesses can be 

discussed in similar real-time forums and turned into 

podcasts. 

Finding #11: Lack of resources (not enough time, 

funding, or staff capacity) were the biggest obstacles to 

grantees. 

A lack of resources—such as time, funding, and staff capacity—

consistently emerged from the surveys and case studies as one 

of the primary obstacles to achieving beneficial outcomes. We 

are not suggesting that ARC simply allocate more funding to 

grantees, but there are perhaps low- to no-cost ways to ensure 

resource capacity is enough to better support grantees to 

maximize benefits. 

Recommendation #11: Build local capacity for planning 

and administering ARC grants.

As ARC potentially enhances its role as an information nexus, it 

can leverage this function by making ARC grantees aware of 

ongoing related programs, such as the Connect America Fund, 

E-rate, and others, to enhance the ability of projects to improve 

staff capacity, increase available funding, and adopt best 

practices during project implementation. ARC could also 

consider how to more effectively partner with and leverage 

funding from the private sector when feasible. 

If requested by grantees and with more resources, greater 

access to ARC staff during the grant period could be done via 

videoconferencing and other web-based communication 

platforms to stay in closer communication with grantees. 
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-17 

9.3.2 ARC as a Grant Operator 

Over the course of the research process, RTI observed a wide 

diversity of project types, beneficiaries, funding structures, and 

reporting quality. Although this diversity is indicative of the 

diversity of grants and needs in this space, it also reflected 

room to incorporate more strategic investments in ARC’s 

portfolio. The grants database indicates that data collection 

during the 2004 through 2010 time frame was sporadic and 

inconsistent across projects. Improvements to ARC’s grant 

operations will improve the quality of projects selected and 

effectiveness of grants. Findings and recommendations in this 

section address two elements of grants: (1) the RFP and 

proposal process and (2) the data collection and reporting 

process. 

RFP and Proposal Process 

Finding #12: The telecommunications and technology 

grantmaking was loosely structured, allowing for 

maximum flexibility for states to self-select the most 

desired projects for ARC investment. 

Projects spanned the entire spectrum of infrastructure, 

adoption, and applications of telecommunications technology. 

As a result, the outputs and impacts from ARC investments 

range widely. The wide range of projects is indicative of a mix 

of federal, state, and local initiatives, some of which are not 

directly linked to telecommunications or technology. 

Recommendation #12: Adopt the RTI functional and 

beneficiary frameworks for structuring ARC’s 

telecommunications and technology portfolio. ARC 

member states can determine the desired portfolio mix 

for maximum impact and invest in grants accordingly. 

To more effectively and strategically invest in 

telecommunications and technology, ARC and its member 

states should develop overarching principles to help states 

guide their project design so that projects are set up for longerterm impacts and are less likely to become “stranded” 

investments as a result of technology changes. ARC member 

states can also create an RFP with clear guidelines and 

parameters about priorities in broadband Internet for 

community economic development and encourage grantees to 

pursue “lessons learned” from this evaluation, such as 

ARC member states can 

also create an RFP with 

clear guidelines and 

parameters about 

priorities in broadband

Internet for community 

economic development
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-18

mechanisms for stronger communication in the community and 

incorporating stronger elements of planning (see Finding #13 

and Recommendation #14). 

Finding #13: Impacts are accelerated when communities 

as a whole are aware of and engaged in the 

telecommunications and technology investment. 

In the survey and case studies, grantees reported that projects 

not engaged with the community about their efforts faced 

barriers. However, grantees also indicated the grants had 

broader secondary effects on communities and community 

partners that were not originally anticipated in the application. 

Recommendation #13: ARC should encourage the 

inclusion of communities in the grant planning process to 

help avoid stranded investments and maximize 

community use of investments. 

As part of the grant proposal and evaluation, ARC should 

strongly encourage applicants to include community aspects in 

their program or project design. The application should include 

a section to identify community partners and other 

stakeholders and encourage grantees to engage multiple civic 

organizations and businesses. Engaging the community ahead 

of time and planning for collaborative activities ensure that 

grantees more carefully consider community needs. 

Additionally, community involvement should help with avoiding 

stranded investments—programs or projects that are 

abandoned or underused because they only serve a single 

group or purpose. Grant applications should address how 

investments will allow for multiple uses and users in the 

community so equipment is not underused. Furthermore, ARC 

member states can encourage grants that incorporate multiple 

dimensions of the broadband Internet functional framework 

(direct, indirect, applications, adoption) for the highest level of 

effectiveness. 

Finding #14: Stronger, more thoroughly developed 

proposals have a greater likelihood of overcoming 

unexpected challenges and delivering successful 

outcomes. 

Engaging the community 

ahead of time and 

planning for 

collaborative activities 

ensure that grantees more 

carefully consider 

community needs.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-19 

Our case studies revealed that some of the more successful 

projects benefitted from the participation of partners with 

professional planning skills and from a proactive focus on 

adaptive changes as the project progressed. Contingency 

planning and scenario building encourage applicants to consider 

the options for responding to challenges that can easily span 

funding shifts, retirement or loss of key personnel, technology 

obsolescence, or even natural disasters. Preapplication planning 

offers a venue for engaging potential stakeholders in the effort 

and building community support. 

Recommendation #14: ARC member states can use its 

RFP process to ask applicants to identify factors critical 

to the success of their grant and relay alternative 

approaches for mitigating potential challenges to those 

critical success factors. ARC can reinforce planning as an 

element important for grantees to embrace by requiring 

more fully developed project plans as a milestone that 

triggers release of funds to implement the full project. 

With encouragement, organizations planning 

telecommunications and technology projects can become better 

prepared to respond to major threats and adapt to changing 

circumstances. Information required on a more structured 

application form could incent more forethought and active 

planning on the part of applicants. ARC can provide potential 

applicants access to best practice resources and planning 

toolkits on its website.

Data Collection and Reporting 

Finding #15: The performance data in ARC.net are 

inconsistent in quality, making it difficult to assess 

performance “success” based on project indicators. 

Reported data from ARC grantees lacked consistency and rigor 

and made it difficult to assess project outcomes. Projects with 

missing data represented approximately one-sixth of the 

portfolio, making it difficult to define the impacts as truly 

representative of the program. 

Additionally, grantees used inconsistent methods to report 

paired outputs and outcomes. While some used a very strict 

standard for explaining “served” as opposed to “improved,” 

others appeared to insert the same numbers in both columns. 

These inconsistencies indicate a lack of understanding of 

Some of the more 

successful projects 

benefitted from the 

participation of partners 

with professional 

planning skills and from 

a proactive focus on 

adaptive changes as the 

project progressed.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-20

reporting standards and made it impossible to conclude which 

projects resulted in positive results for participants. 

Recommendation #15: Simplify data collection for ARC 

grantees by eliminating paired metrics and systemizing 

data collection with online tools. 

By trimming down the number of performance measures, 

grantees will be able to more easily distinguish the metrics they 

are collecting and report them accurately. An online tool to 

simplify data collection will also enable better data consistency 

and quality across all projects. 

Data collection efforts using self-reported data in paper format 

are outdated. By systemizing data collection with online tools 

based on a quality database infrastructure, ARC can track 

performance on a year-to-year basis and streamline the 

process of updating and archiving data. (RTI’s successful use of 

an online survey for this evaluation proves that most grantees 

have online access. For those grantees without access, ARC can 

follow up this data collection by phone). 

Finding #16: Observation of at-close performance 

measures often fails to capture the full effects of a grant 

and its wider impacts on the community. 

From RTI’s survey, respondents explained both quantitative and 

qualitative long-term impacts of the grants. The responses 

paint an impressive picture of a high return on investment for 

ARC-funded projects, which was difficult to observe from the 

at-close data alone. The majority of projects continued after the 

grant period and secured secondary funding, continuing their 

work in the communities. 

Additionally, projects had unexpected secondary results that 

included leveraging more funding, forming better community 

relationships and business environments, and empowering 

students and health workers to find innovative solutions. These 

survey findings, together with the strong after-close 

performance measures, indicated a long-term effect that was 

not captured in the original at-close data. 

Recommendation #16: Capture medium- to long-term 

impacts of grants through periodic surveys 1, 2, and 5 

years after the end of the grant period 

The responses paint an 

impressive picture of a 

high return on investment 

for ARC-funded projects, 

which was difficult to 

observe from the at-close 

data alone. The majority 

of projects continued 

after the grant period and 

secured secondary 

funding, continuing their 

work in the communities.
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-21 

Modern online survey methods are cost-effective and quick to 

deploy to capture information. ARC would benefit greatly from 

investing in a low-cost online survey protocol and 

understanding the long-term impacts of the grants, as well as 

capturing some of the public-sector benefits, including cost 

savings, average speed increases, and impacts on secondary 

beneficiaries. 

By conducting periodic surveys after the end of the grant 

period, ARC can also achieve a higher response rate by 

maintaining contact with relevant stakeholders and project 

managers with institutional memory and more proactively 

evaluate its strategy and adapt to new needs. 

9.4 CONCLUSION 

Given that we offer 16 distinct recommendations derived from 

our multimethod evaluation of the portfolio, review of the 

literature, and investigation of the key policy issues, it is 

worthwhile to consider how these recommendations coalesce 

into broader areas of focus. Essentially, these recommendations 

suggest that ARC pursue three concurrent actions: 

(1) Proactively scan the status of broadband Internet 

programs and policies. 

(2) Adopt a more strategic approach to grantmaking. 

(3) Serve as an information broker by convening, 

coordinating, and educating stakeholders of the rural 

broadband Internet ecosystem and Appalachian Region. 

These actions are not steps in a linear process, but rather each 

action can be used to inform the others, serving as a feedback 

loop to ARC to reinforce beneficial grant investments. 

9.4.1 Proactively Scan the Status of Broadband Internet 

Programs and Policies 

ARC and its member states can better inform ARC’s decisions 

by conducting regular, proactive scans of the Appalachian 

Region to identify community needs for broadband Internet and 

developments in the policy environment. Needs identified in 

this study do not require exhaustive effort or research. Instead, 

a staff member to serve in this role may be a half-time position 

that monitors last mile connections, cost, quality, competition 

among providers, and digital literacy programs in the 

ARC would benefit 

greatly from investing in 

a low-cost online survey 

protocol and 

understanding the longterm impacts of the 

grants, as well as 

capturing some of the 

public-sector benefits,

including cost savings, 

average speed increases, 

and impacts on secondary 

beneficiaries.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

9-22

Appalachian Region. Some of these data points are readily 

available, while others could require some effort to collect. 

Additionally, as the hyperdynamic policy environment continues 

to evolve, ARC staff can monitor policies on 

 net neutrality, 

 local choice, 

 dig and wire once policies, 

 E-rate and other USAC programs, and 

 policy issues related to telehealth. 

Better understanding of these policies will inform a more 

strategic grantmaking process and provide better information 

for grantees and others in the Appalachian Region on ways to 

best leverage existing resources to advance broadband Internet 

deployment and adoption. 

9.4.2 Adopt a More Strategic Approach to Grantmaking 

ARC can more strategically invest in communities and areas 

where gaps exist, continuing with a focus on the pressing needs 

of telehealth, education, and workforce development while 

broadly supporting job creation. 

A set of RFPs to better disseminate ARC or Region-specific 

data-driven strategic priorities will help state representatives 

and potential grantees navigate their planning and proposal 

development. Greater access to ARC staff during the grant 

period is a learning opportunity for grantees and ARC alike. It 

will allow for a better exchange of coordinated strategies, 

expectations, best practices, and accurate data to allow for 

effective grant management and implementation. With more 

regular engagement of grantees during the grant period, ARC 

can learn more quickly and fold this ongoing feedback into 

future grantmaking decisions. 

Finally, a systematic online data collection effort using simple 

surveys can better track project impacts and challenges during 

and after the grant period. Using a systematic online data 

collection method will create a virtuous positive feedback loop 

for ARC and grantees. ARC will be able to more effectively 

adapt to the rapidly changing technology and policy 

environment. By incorporating efficient two-way communication 

and data reporting, ARC will be able to make strategic decisions 
Section 9 — Findings and Recommendations 

9-23 

more quickly and proactively in order to continue advancing 

telecommunications and technology in the Region. 

9.4.3 Convene, Coordinate, and Educate Stakeholders of the 

Broadband Internet Ecosystem 

Finally, ARC can increase the effectiveness of its grants by 

convening key individuals and groups to help gather (virtually 

or in person) and disseminate best practices. With its 

experience and knowledge of the Region, ARC is well positioned 

to share information among local grant applicants, state 

program managers, and other federal agencies involved in 

broadband Internet and technology investment in rural areas. 

ARC can play a valuable coordinating role in determining how 

various partners, programs, sources of expertise, and other 

resources can unite to achieve maximum impact on the 

Appalachian Region. 

Appendix A: 

Database 

Modifications 

A-1 

In its database management process, RTI narrowed the 

database to more concisely and accurately analyze the effects 

of the telecommunications and technology portfolio. 

Section A.1 outlines the projects RTI consolidated or 

eliminated from the database, and Section A.2 outlines the 

projects with incomplete data and their reasons for exclusion 

from the comparative performance statistics in the database 

summary (Section 5). 

A.1 CONSOLIDATION AND ELIMINATION OF 

PROJECTS FROM DATABASE

In December 2014, RTI and ARC agreed to remove seven 

projects from the evaluation because they were outside of the 

scope of the study. Five of the projects were revisions to 

projects with initial approval dates prior to 2004, one project 

was a revision to a consulting agreement, and the remaining 

project was an award related to the ARC grants performance 

measurement system. 

Additionally, RTI combined eight projects into four to 

consolidate multiple grants to the same recipient. These 

projects represent pairs of projects that are the revisions and 

initial awards. 

Finally, ARC recommended removing two projects because they 

were outside the scope of the evaluation. 

The elimination of these 12 projects narrowed the database 

from 322 to 310 projects. They are listed in Table A-1.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

A-2 

Table A-1. Projects Eliminated or Consolidated from the Project Portfolio for Evaluation 

Project Number Title Action

NY-14631-I-R1 Southern Tier East Telecommunications 

Facility Inventory & Computer Mapping, 

Revision

Remove: outside study window

NY-14632-I-R1 Southern Tier West Wireless Technology 

Study, Revision

Remove: outside study window

NY-15051-I-R1 Southwestern NY Entrepreneurship 

Development, Revision

Remove: outside study window

WV-14477-I-R1 EdVenture Group Technology Opportunity 

Center TOC, Revision

Remove: outside study window

WV-14477-I-R2 Ed Venture Group Technology Opportunity 

Centers TOC, Revision

Remove: outside study window

CO-13958-I-A-R3 Michael Hernon Telecommunication 

Consultant, Revision

Remove: outside study window

CO-12882-I-J Web-Based Resources for Grant 

Development/Performance Measurement & 

Assessment of Opportunities to Improve 

Business Processes

Remove: outside scope of 

evaluation

CO-14135-C4 Southern Growth Policies Board Annual 

Conference

Remove: outside scope of 

evaluation

MD-16516-I-R1 Washington County GIS Site Mapping Consolidate with MD-16516-I

NY-15778-R1 Schuyler-Chemung-Tioga BOCES Educational 

Opportunities Network

Consolidate with NY-15778

CO-14157-C3-R1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 2005 

Summer Institute

Consolidate with CO-14157-C3

CO-14157-C6-R1 Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORNL) 

2008 Summer Math/ Science/Technology 

Institute

Consolidate with CO-14157-C6

Source: ARC.net, RTI Memo, December 5, 2014 

A.2 PROJECTS WITH INCOMPLETE DATA 

RTI identified 79 grants that were missing at-close numbers or 

projected numbers.152 ARC and RTI were able to review and 

update data for 25 grants by searching through paper files that 

were not captured in ARC.net, leaving 54 (17 percent of the 

grant portfolio) without at-close data. The 54 grants without atclose data fell into three categories: 

 

152 RTI did not make any modifications to the validated data. Of the 

310 projects, 65 had a validation visit from ARC. This report does 

not analyze validation data. 
Appendix A — Database Modifications 

A-3 

 23 had no performance data available at the close of the 

grant because the programs were just getting started or 

were in the early stages of implementation. 

 10 were managed by another agency, and ARC does not 

get closeout numbers from them. Examples of other 

agencies include HUD and TVA. 

 ARC and RTI were unable to locate the paper files for 21 

grants. These were primarily for grants between FY 

2004 and FY 2007. 

Descriptive statistics for the portfolio found in Section 5 refer to 

the 310 projects. However, any summaries of performance 

measures rely on the subset of 256 projects with complete 

data. Table A-2 lists the 54 projects with incomplete or 

missing data. 

Table A-2. Projects with Incomplete or Missing Data 

Project Code Title Reason for Missing Data

AL-14894-I Franklin County Telecommunications Data unavailable at close

PA-16187-I Pike County Emergency Training Facility 

Apparatus

Data unavailable at close

PA-16642-I Regional Technology Incubator Equipment Data unavailable at close

NA-16676-I Yancey/Mitchell School-Based Telehealth 

Network

Data unavailable at close

AL-16181-I Networking to Educate Today’s Students 

(NETS)

Data unavailable at close

AL-15844-I Ft Payne Innovative & New Vision for 

Educating Students Today (INVEST)

Data unavailable at close

OH-14789-I Marietta Memorial Hospital South Pavillion 

Operating Center

Data unavailable at close

OH-15602-I Hocking College Energy Institute Data unavailable at close

MD-16261-I Workforce Development Through Smart 

Classroom Technology

Data unavailable at close

AL-15845-I Calhoun Community College Robotics 

Manufacturing Integration & Simulation

Data unavailable at close

AL-14988-I Calhoun Community College Nursing Skills 

Laboratory Equipment

Data unavailable at close

NY-15334-I Research Foundation of SUNY Heavy 

Equipment/Truck Advanced Diesel 

Laboratory

Data unavailable at close

(continued) 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

A-4 

Table A-2. Projects with Incomplete or Missing Data (continued) 

Project Code Title Reason for Missing Data

MD-16359-I Non-Linear Video Editing Lab Upgrade Data unavailable at close

MD-15854-I Frostburg State University Nanotechnology 

Laboratory

Data unavailable at close

MD-16837-I Garrett College Networking Program Data unavailable at close

MS-16532-I Calhoun County Career & Technical Center 

Equipment

Data unavailable at close

MS-16692-I Blue Mountain College Math & Science 

Technology Infrastructure Improvements

Data unavailable at close

NY-14797-C1 Cattaraugus County Asset Mapping Data unavailable at close

NY-14797-I Cattaraugus County Asset Mapping Data unavailable at close

GA-16420-I Bartow County Civic Center AV Equipment Data unavailable at close

NA-15557-I Northwest NC Advanced Materials Cluster Data unavailable at close

KY-15529-I Empowering the People of Rural Appalachian 

KY

Data unavailable at close

AL-16557-I Muscle Shoals National Heritage Website 

Development

Data unavailable at close

PA-15070-I East Stroudsburg Incubator Expansion Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

KY-15734-I Lake Cumberland Career & Training Center 

Renovation

Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

NY-14630-I Odessa-Montour Telecommunications Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

TN-14914-I Rhea County Hospital Equipment Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

KY-16417-I Kentucky School of Bluegrass & Traditional 

Music Program Building Renovation

Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

MS-15662-I Connecting West Point to the World Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

OH-15884-I Monroe County 911 Equipment & Location 

Based Response System

Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

PA-15432-I Erie Technology Incubator at Gannon 

University

Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

KY-16440-I From Coal to Broadband: Making the 

Transition & Connection

Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

MD-14759-I Allconet2 Broadband to Business Electronic 

Infrastructure Equipment, Phase II

Basic agency project; we do not get 

closeout numbers for these

CO-15086-I Mission WV Scholarships Data files unavailable or destroyed

(continued) 
Appendix A — Database Modifications 

A-5 

Table A-2. Projects with Incomplete or Missing Data (continued) 

Project Code Title Reason for Missing Data

CO-15627-I HRDC New Facility Wi-Fi, MD Data files unavailable or destroyed

CO-15228-I CTCNet Basic Computer Skills Curriculum Data files unavailable or destroyed

CO-14871-I OH University WEB IT Data files unavailable or destroyed

CO-15227-I OH Appalachian Community Technology Data files unavailable or destroyed

CO-14849-I Pulaski County Community Broadband, VA Data files unavailable or destroyed

MD-16489-I Allegany County Public School Smart Board Data files unavailable or destroyed

CO-14870-I Epworth Broadband Initiative Data files unavailable or destroyed

PA-14747-I Tourism Web Mapping Enhancements for the 

Valleys of Susquehanna

Data files unavailable or destroyed

AL-14699-I Northeast AL Community College Learning 

Logic Math Computer Lab 

Data files unavailable or destroyed

MD-16524-I Allegany Community College Workforce 

Training Computer & Technology Upgrade

Data files unavailable or destroyed

CO-15821-I Blacksburg Municipal Annex Data files unavailable or destroyed

CO-15820-I St. Francis University Geothermal Heating & 

Cooling System

Data files unavailable or destroyed

AL-14717-I Marshall County E-911 Telecommunications 

Upgrade

Data files unavailable or destroyed

KY-16013-I Edmonson County Technology/Training 

Center Equipment

Data files unavailable or destroyed

AL-7805-C25 Consolidated Technical Assistance Grant Data files unavailable or destroyed

AL-14731-I Franklin County Employability thru 

Technology & Basic Skills Training

Data files unavailable or destroyed

TN-16042-I Rhea Medical Center Electronic Medical 

Records Project

Data files unavailable or destroyed

KY-15424-I Owsley County Dropout Prevention Program Data files unavailable or destroyed

KY-15584-I Regional High Growth Training Center Data files unavailable or destroyed

WV-15663-I Forward Southern WV Public Higher 

Education Mall

Data files unavailable or destroyed

Source: ARC.net, RTI 

 

Appendix B: 

Literature Cited 

B-1 

Alabama Department of Public Health. April 2013. “Selected 

Health Status Indicators: Hale County.” Accessed at 

http://adph.org/ruralhealth/assets/Hale13.pdf on August 

1, 2015. 

Allconet. No date. Homepage. Accessed at www.allconet.org on 

August 1, 2015. 

Alleghany County Commission. 2014. “Alleghany County 

Comprehensive Plan.” Accessed at 

https://www.maryland.gov/PDF/OurWork/CompPlans/All

egany/14_CMP_Draft_Allegany.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

American Hospital Association. January 2015. Trendwatch. The 

Promise of Telehealth for Hospitals, Health Systems and 

Their Communities. 

American Library Association and the College of Information, 

Florida State University. 2007. Libraries Connect 

Communities: Public Library Funding & Technology 

Access Study 2006-2007. Accessed at 

http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files

/content/initiatives/plftas/previousstudies/0607/finalrep

ort.pdf. 

http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files

/content/initiatives/plftas/2010_2011/plftas11-

execsummary.pdf on August 24, 2015. 

American Library Association. The State of America’s Libraries: 

A Report from the American Library Association 2013. 

Accessed at 

http://www.ala.org/news/sites/ala.org.news/files/conten

t/2013-State-of-Americas-Libraries-Report.pdf on 

August 24, 2015. 

Anderson, Monica and Perrin, Andrew. July 2015. “15% of 

Americans Don’t Use the Internet. Who Are They?” Pew 

Research Center. Accessed at 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/28/15-

of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ on 

August 1, 2015. 

Appalachian Regional Commission. “County Economic Status in 

Appalachia, FY 2004.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp?MA

P_ID=11 on August 1, 2015.

Appalachian Regional Commission. “Telecommunications: 

Information Age Appalachia.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/telecom on July 26, 2015.
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

B-2 

Appalachian Regional Commission. 2015. “Distressed 

Designation and County Economic Status Classification 

System, FY 2007 – FY 2016.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/research/SourceandMethodologyCo

untyEconomicStatusFY2007FY2016.asp on August 1, 

2015.

Appalachian Regional Commission. County Economic Status and 

Distressed Areas in Appalachia. “County Economic 

Status and Distressed Areas in Appalachia by State, FY 

2016.” Accessed at

http://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/countyeconomic

statusanddistressedareasinappalachia.asp on August 1, 

2015.

Appalachian Regional Commission. Data Reports website. 

Accessed at http://www.arc.gov/data on August 30, 

2015.

Appalachian Regional Commission. No date. “County Economic 

Status and Distressed Areas in Appalachia.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/CountyEconomi

cStatusandDistressedAreasinAppalachia.asp on 

September 23, 2015. 

Appalachian Regional Commission. No date. “Data Reports: 

Select Data Topics.” Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/data on September 23, 2015. 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Revised 2011. ARC Project 

Guidelines. p. 25. Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/images/newsroom/publications/guid

elines/ARCProjectGuidelines.pdf on July 28, 2015.

Appalachian Regional Commissions. December 2014. Economic 

Diversity in Appalachia: Case Studies in Economic 

Development. Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/EconomicD

iversityinAppalachiaCompilationofAllReports.pdf on July 

31, 2015. 

ASR Analytics. 2014. National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration Broadband Technology 

Opportunities Program Evaluation Study. Final Report: 

Social and Economic Impacts of the Broadband 

Technology Opportunities Program. Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/asr_final_report.pdf on 

August 17, 2015. 
Appendix B — Literature Cited 

B-3 

Baller, Jim and Lide, Casey. 2008. “Bigger Vision, Bolder Action, 

Brighter Future: Capturing the Promise of Broadband in 

North Carolina and America.” Accessed at 

https://ncbroadband.gov/system/resources/BAhbBlsHOg

ZmSSI7MjAxMS8wMy8xOC8xMF81NV80NV81NDhfYnJvY

WRiYW5kX3JlcG9ydF9jb21wb3NpdGUucGRmBjoGRVQ/br

oadband_report_composite.pdf on August 15, 2015. 

Baller, Jim, Hovis, Joanne and Stelfox, Ashley. 2014. “The Killer 

App for Local Fiber Networks.” Accessed at 

http://www.bbpmag.com/MuniPortal/EditorsChoice/1114

editorschoice.php on January 6, 2015. 

Battista, Daniela. 2002. “Demand aggregation to encourage 

infrastructure rollout to under-served regions.” 

Organisation for Co-operation and Economic 

Development (Paris, France). Accessed at 

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/2491219.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

Belo, Rodrigo, Ferreira, Pedro and Telang, Rahul. March 29, 

2013. “Spillovers Effects of Wiring Schools with 

Broadband: The Critical Role of Children.” Accessed at 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=20

32097 on August 24, 2015. 

Bevill State Community College. “History.” Accessed at

http://www.bscc.edu/about/history.php on August 1, 2015. 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Homepage. 

Accessed at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/ on August 1, 

2015.

Broadband USA Connecting America’s Communities. No date. 

“County of Oconee.” Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/grantee/county-of-Oconee. 

And Oconee FOCUS Factsheet. Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/grantees/oconee_focus.p

df on August 1, 2015. 

Business Wire. April 2013. “Cambria Connected Project 

Overview.” Accessed at

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2007050800

6454/en/Cambria-Connected-ProjectOverview#.VglYwvlVhHw on August 1, 2015.

Castro, Daniel, Miller, Ben, and Nager, Adams. 2014. 

“Unlocking the Potential of Physician-to-Patient 

Telehealth Services.” Accessed at 

http://www2.itif.org/2014-unlocking-potentialphysician-patient-telehealth.pdf on August 19, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

B-4 

Center for Regional Competitiveness. 2012. “A Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy for the Isothermal 

Planning Region.” Accessed at 

http://clevelandcc.edu/uploads/information/planning/CE

DS.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness and West 

Virginia University. February 2015. Appalachia Then and 

Now: Examining Changes to the Appalachian Region 

Since 1965. Prepared for the Appalachian Regional 

Commission. Accessed at 

http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/Appalachia

ThenAndNowCompiledReports.pdf on August 12, 2015. 

Clemson University Center for Workforce Development. 

Accessed at http://www.clemson.edu/centersinstitutes/cucwd on August 1, 2015. 

Clemson University College of Engineering and Science. 2011. 

“Request to SC Commission on Higher Education for 

Creation of New Center on Workforce Development.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.che.sc.gov/che_docs/academicaffairs/acap/

acap-01-19-2012/2k.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

Columbia Telecommunications Corporation. 2012. “Broadband 

in Alleghany County: Status, Opportunities, and 

Strategies.” Prepared for Alleghany County Public 

Schools, Board of Education. 

Community Broadband Networks Community Network Map. 

Accessed at http://muninetworks.org/communitymap on 

August 26, 2015. 

Crandall, Robert W., Lehr, William, and Litan, Robert E. July 

2007. “The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output 

and Employment: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of U.S. 

Data.” The Brookings Institution: Issues in Economic 

Policy, Number 6. 

Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission. 2013. 

“Economic Development Strategy.” Accessed at 

http://www.cppdc.com/Reports/2013%20Comprehensiv

e%20Economic%20Development%20Strategy.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

Curri, Michael and Adams, Doug. No date. “Change Is Hard...So 

Is Utilization.” Strategic Network Group. Accessed at 

http://sngroup.com/tag/meaningful-broadband-use/ on 

August 1, 2015. 
Appendix B — Literature Cited 

B-5 

Dzieza, Josh and Bi, Frank. July 15, 2015. “Poverty, More than 

Geography, Determines who Gets Online in America” the 

Verge, Accessed at 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8965409/usinternet-access-map-white-house-report-broadbandinequality on August 13, 2015. 

Economist. March 9, 2013. “The Rise of the Sharing Economy.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-

internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy# on 

August 24, 2015. 

Ericsson, Arthur D. Little, and Chalmers University of 

Technology. September 2013. “Socioeconomic Effects of 

Broadband Speed.” Accessed at 

http://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/corporat

e-responsibility/2013/ericsson-broadband-final071013.pdf on August 18, 2015. 

Ericsson, Arthur D. Little, and Chalmers University of 

Technology. September 2013. “Socioeconomic Effects of 

Broadband Speed.” Accessed at 

http://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompany/docs/corporat

e-responsibility/2013/ericsson-broadband-final071013.pdf on August 24, 2015. 

Fannin County Economic Development Authority. 2009 “Partial 

Update for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan.” Accessed at 

https://www.dca.ga.gov/largefiles/OPQG/2009/FanninCo

.BlueRidgeCi.McCaysvilleCi.MorgantonCi.Prtl.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

Federal Communications Commission. 2010. “2010 E-Rate 

Program and Broadband Usage Survey: Report.” FCC 

Wireline Competition Bureau. Accessed at 

http://transition.fcc.gov/010511_Eratereport.pdf on 

August 24, 2015. 

Federal Communications Commission. 2010. “National 

Broadband Plan.” Accessed at 

https://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan on August 

12, 2015. 

Federal Communications Commission. 2015. “FCC Finds U.S. 

Broadband Deployment Not Keeping Pace.” Accessed at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC331760A1.pdf

Federal Communications Commission. 2015. “Frequently Asked 

Questions: FCC Form 477.” Accessed at 

https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477faqs.pdf on 

August 14, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

B-6 

Federal Communications Commission. January 29, 2015. “FCC 

Finds US Broadband Deployment Not Keeping Pace.” 

Accessed at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC331760A1.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

Federal Communications Commission. July 11, 2014. “Rural 

Broadband Experiments Order.” Accessed at 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadbandexperiments-order on August 17, 2015. 

Federal Communications Commission. July 11, 2014. 

“Summary of the E-Rate Modernization Order.” Accessed 

at https://www.fcc.gov/page/summary-e-ratemodernization-order on August 17, 2015. 

Federal Communications Commission. June 1, 2012. “WCB Cost 

Model Virtual Workshop 2012 Community Anchor 

Institutions.” Accessed at 

https://www.fcc.gov/blog/wcb-cost-model-virtualworkshop-2012-community-anchor-institutions on 

August 24, 2015. 

Federal Communications Commission. September 2015. “Rural 

Health Care Program.” Accessed at 

https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rural-health-care on 

August 17, 2015. 

Feser, Ed, Horrigan, John, and Lehr, William. December 2012. 

“Symposium Report: Findings from the Research 

Roundtable on the Economic and Community Impact of 

Broadband.” Accessed at 

http://works.bepress.com/edwardfeser/34/ on August 

24, 2015. 

First Energy. 2015. “Youngstown Business Incubator Earns 

Recognition.” Accessed at 

https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/fecorp/econo

micdevelopment/resource_room/features/YBI-earnsrecognition.html on August 1, 2015. 

Foothills Connect Business and Technology Center. No date. 

Accessed at http://www.foothillsconnect.com/ on August 

1, 2015. 

Forbes. February 11, 2013. “Airbnb and the Unstoppable Rise of 

the Share Economy.” Accessed at 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/01/23/ai

rbnb-and-the-unstoppable-rise-of-the-share-economy/

on August 24, 2015. 
Appendix B — Literature Cited 

B-7 

Frese, John (ed.). 2006. “Reality Check Plus Participant 

Guidebook Western MD Section.” National Center for 

Smart Growth Research and Education. Accessed at 

http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/assets/documents/rcp/wes

tern_maryland_guidebook_section.pdf on August 1, 

2015.

Goldman, Alex. June 2008. “Two ISPs on Cambria Connected: 

In The Stix and Digital Razor.” Wi-Fi Planet. Accessed at 

http://www.wifiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3753881/ on August 1, 

2015.

GovTech.com. 2008. “Cambria County, PA, Multi-Use Wireless 

Network Goes Live.” Accessed at 

http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Cambria-CountyPa-Multi-Use.html on August 1, 2015. 

High-Schools.com. “Alabama High Schools.” Accessed at 

http://high-schools.com/directory/al/#cities-in-state on 

August 1, 2015. 

Horrigan, John. 2010. “Broadband Adoption and Use in 

America.” FCC Omnibus Broadband Initiative Working 

Paper Series Part I. Accessed at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC296442A1.pdf on August 17, 2015. 

Jankowski et al. 2014. “IoT Primer, The Internet of Things: 

Making sense of the next mega-trend.” Goldman Sachs. 

Accessed at http://www.goldmansachs.com/ourthinking/outlook/internet-of-things/iot-report.pdf on 

September 17, 2015. 

Johnson, Dave. August 23, 2012. “Ohio 3-D Printing 

Manufacturing Hub Initiative.” Our Future. Accessed at 

https://ourfuture.org/20120823/ohio-3d-printingmanufacturing-hub-initiative on August 1, 2015. 

Katz, Raul. April 2012. “Impact of Broadband on the Economy.” 

ITU Broadband Series. Accessed at 

https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/broadband/ITU-BBReports_Impact-of-Broadband-on-the-Economy.pdf on 

August 19, 2015. 

Kolko, Jed. January 2012. “Broadband and Local Growth.” 

Journal of Urban Economics 71(1). Accessed at 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00941

19011000490 on August 13, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

B-8 

Lake Cumberland Area Development District Board of Directors. 

2013. “Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 

2013: Mapping the Progress of the Lake Cumberland 

Area Economy.” Accessed at 

http://lcadd.org/manager/index2.php?option=com_doc

man&task=doc_view&gid=135&Itemid=87 on August 1, 

2015.

Land, Guy. September 28, 2015. Chief of Staff, Appalachian 

Regional Commission. Personal email. 

Lehr, William et al. 2006. “Measuring Broadband’s Economic 

Impact.” Working Paper.

Lovett, Marsha, Meyer, Oded, and Thille, Candace. 2008. “The 

Open Learning Initiative: Measuring the Effectiveness of 

the OLI Statistics Course in Accelerating Student 

Learning.”

Mayo, Melissa. Western Alabama Regional Commission. 

“Enhancing Water Department Efficiency Using GIS and 

GPS to produce quality maps of rural water system 

features.” ArcUser Online Publications. Accessed at 

http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0408/bamah2o.html

on August 1, 2015. 

National Broadband Map. Accessed at 

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about on August 25, 

2015.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. 

“Historic Tornado April 27, 2011.” Accessed at 

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/?n=event_04272011Eve

ning World on August 1, 2015. 

National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 

“About BroadbandUSA.” Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/about on August 14, 2015. 

National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 

2010. “State Broadband Initiative.” Accessed at 

http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/SBDD?page=1 on August 13, 

2015.

National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 

January 2015. “BroadbandUSA: An Introduction to 

Effective Public-Private Partnerships for Broadband 

Investments.” Accessed at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_ppp

_010515.pdf on August 26, 2015 
Appendix B — Literature Cited 

B-9 

National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 

May 2013. “NTIA Broadband Adoption Toolkit.” Accessed 

at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/toolkit_042913.pdf on 

August 26, 2015. 

National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 

May 13, 2013. “NTIA Explores Broadband Availability in 

New Report Series.” Accessed at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/ntia-exploresbroadband-availability-new-report-series on September 

23, 2015. 

Northwest Georgia Regional Commission. Community and 

Economic Development. 2012. “Northwest Georgia 

Regional Comprehensive Economic Development 

Strategy.” Accessed at http://www.nwgrc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012_NWGRC_CEDS_Draft_revised.pdf

on August 1, 2015. 

Oden, Michael and Strover, Sharon. June 2004. “2004 Update: 

Links to the Future: The Role of Information and 

Telecommunications Technology in Appalachian 

Economic Development.” ARC, University of Texas.

PANGAEA. No date. “Mission.” Accessed at http://www.epolk.org/mission/ on August 1, 2015. 

Pennsylvania State Data Center. 2013 “Research Brief.” 

Accessed at 

https://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/sdc/pasdc_files/researchbrief

s/2012_County_Estimates_RB.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

Peterson, Tim. “Digital to Overtake TV Ad Spending in Two 

Years, Says Forrester.” Advertising Age. Accessed at 

http://adage.com/article/media/digital-overtake-tv-adspending-years-forrester/295694/ on August 25, 2015. 

Pew Research Center. June 26, 2015. “Americans’ Internet 

Access: 2000-2015.” Accessed at 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americansinternet-access-2000-2015/ on August 17, 2015. 

Pew Research Center. No date. Internet Use over Time. 

Accessed at http://www.pewinternet.org/datatrend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time/ on August 

24, 2015. 

Pew Research Center. Three Technology Revolutions. Accessed 

at http://www.pewinternet.org/three-technologyrevolutions/ on August 20, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

B-10

Price Waterhouse Coopers. April 2015. “The Sharing Economy.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/technology/publications

/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharingeconomy.pdf on August 24, 2015. 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2014. “County Health 

Rankings and Roadmaps.” Accessed at 

http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/alabama/201

4/measure/factors/4/map on August 1, 2015. 

Rutherford County Economic Development Strategic Plan. 2013. 

Accessed at 

http://rutherfordncedc.com/assets/files/Strategic%20Pla

n/Econ%20Dev%20Strategic%20Plan%20final%20corre

cted%206-21-13%20(2).pdf on August 1, 2015. 

SC Appalachian Council of Governments. 2014. “CED Update 2-

14: An Outstanding Year for Target Industry and Global 

Competitiveness.” Accessed at 

http://www.scacog.org/Portals/9/2014%20SCACOG%20

CEDS%20UPDATE.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

SC Appalachian Council of Governments. No date. Accessed at 

http://www.scacog.org/ on August 1, 2015. 

SEDA Council of Governments. 2015. “SEDA-COG At a Glance.” 

Accessed at http://www.sedacog.org/PDF%20Library/At%20a%20Glance.pdf on 

August 1, 2015. 

SEDA-Council of Governments. June 2015. “Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy Five Year Update.” 

Accessed at http://www.sedacog.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/5-

Year%202015%20CEDS%20FINAL.pdf on August 1, 

2015.

Shapiro, Robert and Mathur, Aparna. September 2011. “The 

Contributions of Information and Communication 

Technologies on American Growth, Productivity, Jobs, 

and Prosperity.” Accessed at 

http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/Report_on_ICT_

and_Innovation-Shapiro-Mathur-September8-2011-

1.pdf on August 19, 2015. 

Southeast Tennessee Development District. 2015. “Draft 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.” 

Accessed at 

http://www.sedev.org/downloads/SETDD2015DraftCEDS

Update.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Appendix B — Literature Cited 

B-11

Southeast Tennessee Development District. Accessed at 

http://www.sedev.org/www on August 1, 2015. 

Strategic Networks Group. 2011. “e-NC and SNG Study Reveals 

Types of Home-Based Businesses.” Accessed at 

http://www.sngroup.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/SNG-Quick-byte-Home-basedbusinesses-findings-Jul2011.pdf on August 25, 2015. 

Tennessee Department of Economic and Community 

Development. No date. “Regional Strategic Plan.” 

Accessed at 

http://issuu.com/setdd/docs/jobs4tn_report?e=4030331

/6344696 on August 1, 2015. 

The Town Paper. No date. “What is a Charrette?” Accessed at 

http://www.tndtownpaper.com/what_is_charrette.htm

on August 26, 2015. 

Tri-State Regional Workforce Alliance. Accessed at 

http://nwgrc.org/tristateregionalworkforcealliance/ on 

August 1, 2015. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. No date. Local Area 

Unemployment Statistics Map. Accessed at 

http://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet?survey=la&ma

p=state&seasonal=s on August 1, 2015. 

U.S. Census Bureau. No date. Quick Facts Beta 2.0. Accessed 

at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html on 

August 1, 2015. Note that the percentage of the 

population over 65 years is as of July 1, 2014; data 

related to high school graduation, per capita income, 

and poverty are numbers are based on the most recent 

year available. 

U.S. Census. American Community Survey. 2009-2013. 

“Commuting Characteristics.” Accessed at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/page

s/productview.xhtml?src=CF on August 1, 2015. 

U.S. Census. State and County QuickFacts. “Population.” 

Accessed at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/3988000.ht

ml on August 1, 2015. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service. January 

2011. Advancing Broadband: A Foundation for Strong 

Rural Communities. Broadband Initiatives Program 

Awards Report. Accessed at 

http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/reports/RBBreportV5ForW

eb.pdf on August 1, 2015. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

B-12

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “VA Telehealth Services.” 

Accessed at http://www.telehealth.va.gov/sft/ on 

August 23, 2015. 

University of North Georgia. 2014. “North Georgia Regional 

Education and Economic Development Task Force 

Summary.” Accessed at 

http://www.caes.uga.edu/center/caed/pubs/documents/

Fannin_1203.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

Upstate Alliance. Accessed at 

http://www.upstatealliance.com/about-upstate/upstatesc-overview on August 1, 2015. 

Virginal Employment Commission Labor Market Information. 

2015. “Dickenson County Community Profile.” Accessed 

at 

http://virginialmi.com/report_center/community_profiles

/5104000051.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

West Alabama Regional Commission. 2012. “The West Alabama 

Economic Development District Comprehensive 

Economic Development Strategy.” Accessed at 

https://www./warc.info/component/rsfiles/download?pat

h=Planning%20Documents/CEDS2012%20Final%203we

b.pdf on August 1, 2015. 

West Virginia Department of Commerce. 2015. “Energy 

Opportunities.” Accessed at 

http://www.wvcommerce.org/(S(2l44d0rotmq4rg453yac

klfy))/energy/energyopportunities/default.aspx on 

August 1, 2015. 

West Virginia Division of Tourism. 2013. “Economic Impact of 

Travel on West Virginia 2000-2012 Detailed State and 

County Estimates.” Accessed at 

http://www.wvcommerce.org/App_Media/assets/doc/tra

velandrec/industry/marketing/2012_Economic_Impact.p

df on August 1, 2015. 

Western Alabama Regional Commission. 2012. “District II 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.”

Accessed at http://warc.info/planning-adevelopment/documents on August 1, 2015. 

Whitacre, Brian, Gallardo, Roberto, and Strover, Sharon. 2013. 

“Rural Broadband Availability and Adoption: Evidence, 

Policy Challenges, and Options.” National Agricultural 

and Rural Development Policy Center. Accessed at 

http://www.nardep.info/uploads/BroadbandWhitePaper.

pdf on August 24, 2015. 
Appendix B — Literature Cited 

B-13

Zickhur, Katherine. September 15, 2013. “Who’s Not Online 

and Why.” Pew Research Center. Accessed at 

http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-notonline-and-why/ on August 15, 2015. 

Zoominfo. “Mr. Brian P. Feist.” Accessed at 

www.zoominfo.com/p/Brian-Feist/901771878 on August 1, 

2015.

Appendix C: 

Survey of Projects 

Funded by the 

Appalachian 

Regional 

Commission on 

Information 

Technology and 

Broadband Internet 

C-1 

We have a series of questions about the [insert name of project; ARC project number] 

grant you received from ARC to implement from [insert time frame of project]. 

1) How would you describe the economic conditions in the town or region that the grant 

targeted at the time [insert the project name] was awarded? 

a. Excellent 

b. Good 

c. Fair 

d. Poor 

e. Don’t know 

2) How would you describe the economic conditions in the town or region that the grant 

targeted today? 

a. Excellent 

b. Good 

c. Fair 

d. Poor 

e. Don’t know 

3) In thinking about the town or region the ARC-funded project served, do you think that 

residents are, for the most part, satisfied with each of the following aspects of their 

lives today? 

Rank each item below on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being extremely unsatisfied, 5 being 

satisfied and 10 being extremely satisfied. 

a. The number of people with good, well-paying jobs that you have regular 

contact with 

b. The safety of your neighborhood especially around the schools that your 

children attend 

c. The quality of libraries, hospitals, and transportation amenities in your 

neighborhood 

d. Your ability to move to a different neighborhood if you wanted to move 

4) What was your role in the ARC-funded project? Check the most appropriate response. 

a. Project manager 

b. Project staff 

c. Grant application/grant manager 

d. Staff with partner organization 

e. Community member involved in or aware of the project 

f. Local government employee involved in or aware of the project 

g. Other, please describe. [insert text box] 

5) Did your organization contract with an outside entity with a specialization in grantwriting to help your organization develop the grant proposal? 

CATEGORIES 

1 Yes 

2 No

3 Don’t know 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

C-2 

6) Did your organization contract with an outside entity to help implement, manage, or 

evaluate the funded project? 

CATEGORIES 

1 Yes 

2 No

3 Don’t know 

7) In your own words, as you reflect on the [insert name of project and project #], has 

the town or region changed as a result? In other words, if this grant had not happened, 

would the town or region be different than it is today? Please explain. 

8) Over the life of the project, what were the challenges your organization faced in 

carrying out the project? Please check all that apply. [Randomize options except Other 

and None] 

a. Third-party or additional resources expected to facilitate project did not come 

through 

b. Staff members were unable to devote sufficient time to the project 

c. Staff members lacked enough expertise to carry out the project 

d. Our organization encountered unexpected problems that made it difficult to 

devote attention to the ARC project. 

e. Staff turnover created difficulties in carrying out the project 

f. Lack of support from organizational leadership 

g. Other? Please describe 

h. There were no challenges in carrying out the project 

Please expand if you like: 

9) Did you have a community advisory group for your project? 

a. Yes 

b. No

c. Don’t know 

10)Rank the top three factors that you think would have helped the project have a greater 

impact than it did with 1 being the most significant factor that would have helped the 

project, 2 being the second most significant, and 3 being the third most significant. 

[Randomize with “other” last]

a. More funding 

b. More flexibility in grant requirements 

c. More time 

d. Better trained staff 

e. Better technical assistance 

f. Greater community buy-in and/or support 

g. More awareness about the project 

h. Greater support from organizational leadership 

i. Other___please specify. 
Appendix C — Survey of Projects Funded by the Appalachian 

Regional Commission on Information Technology and Broadband 

C-3 

Please expand if you like: [insert text box] 

11)Since the project’s conclusion, has your organization documented measures of the 

project’s impacts? 

a. Yes 

b. No

c. Don’t know 

12)Has your organization conducted an end-of-project evaluation? 

a. Yes 

b. No

c. Don’t know 

If yes to #11, go to #13; if no or don’t know to #11, go to #14 (every respondent 

should get #9). 

13)Different projects have impacts that can fall into different categories. From the list of 

possible impacts below, please check whether a listed impact applies to your project. 

Businesses and Jobs 

Households 

Leveraged Private Investment 

Linear Feet and Telecom Sites 

Programs and Plans 

Patients 

Students 

Workers/Trainees 

Participants 

Other 

13 a–k. You have listed [insert first-level categories checked] as an impact of your ARC 

project. 

a. Please specify how many businesses and jobs were impacted. Check all metrics that apply 

and list the number beside the checked metric. 

Businesses Created [insert field for #] 

 Businesses Served [insert field for #] 

 Jobs Created [insert field for #] 

 Jobs Retained [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

C-4 

b. Please specify how many households were impacted. Check all metrics that apply and list 

the number beside the checked metric. 

 Households improved [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

c. Please specify how much private investment is leveraged. Check all metrics that apply and 

list the number beside the checked metric. 

Funding leveraged [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

d. Please specify how much linear feet of fiber was constructed and/or how many telecom 

sites were established. Check all metrics that apply and list the number beside the checked 

metric 

Linear feet of broadband established (linear feet of fiber constructed) [insert 

field for #] 

Telecom Sites established [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

e. Please specify how many programs and plans were created and/or implemented. Check all 

metrics that apply and list the number beside the checked metric 

 Programs implemented [insert field for #] 

 Please briefly describe programs implemented [insert text box] 

 Plans or reports created [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

f. Please specify how many patients were impacted. Check all metrics that apply and list the 

number beside the checked metric. 

 Patients improved [insert field for #] 

Patients served [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

g. Please specify how many students were impacted. Check all metrics that apply and list the 

number beside the checked metric. 

Students improved [insert field for #] 

Students served [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 
Appendix C — Survey of Projects Funded by the Appalachian 

Regional Commission on Information Technology and Broadband 

C-5 

h. Please specify how many workers/trainees were impacted. Check all metrics that apply and 

list the number beside the checked metric. 

Workers/trainees improved [insert field for #] 

Workers/trainees served [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

i. Please specify how many participants were impacted. Check all metrics that apply and list 

the number beside the checked metric. 

Participants improved [insert field for #] 

Participants served [insert field for #] 

Don’t know/We do not collect impact metrics 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

a. Please specify other kinds of impacts that you have noted. 

[second-level categories] 

Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

 Other [insert field for name] [insert field for #] 

14)We would now like to ask you about how the ARC project might have had broad impacts 

in your community. Please check all the categories that apply for the kinds of impact 

the ARC project [insert project name and #] may have had. Check all that apply, 

though many choices may not be relevant to your ARC-funded project. 

Communications Infrastructure 

a) Better broadband Internet service for households in the region 

b) Better service delivery to your organization’s clients or customers 

c) Better broadband Internet service for schools or other organizations 

d) Better broadband Internet for hospitals or other health care facilities 

e) Better broadband Internet service for libraries 

f) Better broadband Internet for other community organizations 

g) None of the above/not relevant 

Job & Business Climate 

a) Better broadband Internet service for businesses 

b) Better climate for entrepreneurship 

c) Better business climate for companies 

d) More jobs for a town or region 

e) More home-based businesses 

f) None of the above/not relevant 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

C-6 

Education/Skill Building 

a) Improved the level of job skills for people in a town or region 

b) Improved the educational level of people in a town or region 

c) Students better prepared for post-secondary education 

d) Students or workers better prepared for the workforce 

e) Improved computer, broadband Internet and/or social medial skills 

f) None of the above/not relevant 

Public Purposes 

h) Improved planning capacity of a town or region to help facilitate community 

or economic growth 

i) Improved communication between local governments and their citizens 

j) Better GIS applications that yield improved information about local or 

regional infrastructure 

k) More online services provided by government, such as paying water bills or 

taxes, obtaining permits making reservations, etc. 

l) None of the above/not relevant 

Health/Safety 

m) Improved health care for clients 

n) Improved public safety for residents 

o) None of the above/not relevant 

15)Overall, do you think this project met ARC’s expectations? Check one. 

a. Exceeded expectations 

b. Met expectations 

c. Somewhat met expectations 

d. Did not meet expectations 

16)Please describe any factors that led to the ability of the project to meet expectations. 

17)It is possible that your ARC-funded project had broader impacts on the region or 

organization at which the project funding was aimed. Please identify the broader 

impacts from the following list; you may check more than one if it applies. 

a. Participants in the project are better at cooperating with others in the 

community to address issues 

b. Participants in the project are more likely to have a leadership role in 

addressing community issue 

c. Participants feel more connected to the community than they did before 

d. Other [insert text box] 

e. None 
Appendix C — Survey of Projects Funded by the Appalachian 

Regional Commission on Information Technology and Broadband 

C-7 

18)How much, if at all, has the ARC-funded project helped facilitate new relationships in 

your region across organizations that might not otherwise have strong ties? 

CATEGORIES 

1. A lot (5 or more) 

2. Somewhat (3–4)

3. Not very much (1–2)

4. Not at all (0) 

Please expand if you like: 

19)Since the conclusion of the project, how often have individuals who participated in the 

project held meetings to discuss issues the project was aimed at addressing? 

a. Very often (every 1–3 months) 

b. Somewhat often (every 4–9 months) 

c. Not too often (once a year) 

d. Never 

20)Was the project intended to be ongoing after the grant period? 

a. Yes 

b. No

c. Don’t know 

21)Did the ARC-funded grant [insert name of grant and grant #] receive any funding to 

support its activities after the ARC funds expired? 

a. Yes 

b. No

If yes, #22  if no #24. 

22)Where did the funds come from after the ARC project closed? Check all that apply. 

a) State government 

b) County government 

c) Private sector 

d) A grant from a nonprofit or foundation 

e) Some other source of federal funds 

f) Don’t Know 

g) Other (insert blank space to list) 

23)If you know how much additional funding was attracted after the ARC grant, [insert 

name of grant and grant #], was completed please fill in. 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

C-8 

24)What are your community’s biggest needs in broadband telecommunications and 

related technology infrastructure in the years ahead? (check all that apply)

a. Infrastructure investments to reach households currently unserved by 

broadband Internet networks 

b. Infrastructure investment to support faster broadband Internet speeds service 

c. More technical support personnel in the community or organization to maintain 

equipment 

d. Replacing out-of-date computers or technologies in schools, hospitals, libraries, 

and local government. 

e. Investing in retrofitting facilities, such as internal wiring, so they can better 

support wireless broadband Internet access 

f. Other [insert text box] 

g. Don’t know 

25)What are your community’s biggest needs in order to increase adoption of broadband 

telecommunications and related technology in the years ahead? 

(check all that apply) 

a. Lower monthly broadband Internet fees for consumers 

b. Improving digital literacy for citizens 

c. More competition among broadband Internet providers 

d. Other [insert text box] 

e. Don’t know 

26)What are your community’s biggest needs in improving education for broadband 

Internet and related technology in the years ahead? (check all that apply) 

a. More training for people working in libraries, health care facilities, or other 

community organizations to help them better use computers and broadband 

Internet to carry out their missions 

b. More training for teachers so they can better use computers and broadband 

Internet in the classroom to improve educational outcomes 

c. More education on the issues of privacy, intellectual property, and archiving 

information 

d. Other [insert text box] 

e. Don’t know 

Please expand if you like: 
Appendix D: 

Abbreviations List 

D-1 

ACOG Appalachian Council of Governments 

ARC Appalachian Regional Commission 

ATC Appalachian Technical College 

AV audiovisual 

BIP Broadband Investment Program 

BOCES Board of Cooperative Educational Services 

BOE Board of Education 

BSCC Bevill State Community College 

BTOP Broadband Technology Opportunities Program 

CAF Connect America Fund 

CBDG Community Development Block Grant 

CLIC Coalition for Local Internet Choice 

COG Council of Governments 

CREC Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness 

CU Clemson University 

DCER Dickenson Center for Education and Research 

DCIDB Dickinson County Board of Supervisors’ Industrial Development Board

DREC Dickenson Research and Education Center 

EMR electronic medical record 

EMS emergency medical services 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FCDA Fannin County Development Authority 

FiWi fiber-wireless 

FY fiscal year 

GDP gross domestic product 

GED General Educational Development 

GIS geographic information system 

GPS global positioning system 

HCHC Hale County Health Center 

HFW hybrid fiber-wireless 

HRSA Health Research Service Administration 

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

ICT information and communication technology 

INVEST Innovative & New Vision for Educating Students Today 

IoT Internet of Things 

ISP Internet service provider 

IT information technology 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

D-2 

ITU International Telecommunications Union 

LAN local area network 

LCADD Lake Cumberland Area Development District 

LED light-emitting diode 

NARDEP National Agricultural and Rural Development Policy Center 

NETS Networking to Educate Today’s Students

NGO nongovernmental organization 

NTIA National Telecommunications & Information Administration 

NYSER NET New York State Education Research Network 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

PTAP Promoting Technology Adoption for Progress 

PTAP Promoting Technology Adoption for Progress 

RFP Request for Proposal 

SBI State Broadband Initiatives 

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition

SCC Somerset Community College 

SEDA-COG SEDA-Council of Governments 

SETDD Southeast Tennessee Development Division 

SKRECC South Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation 

SNG Strategic Networks Group 

SPCDF Somerset Pulaski County Development Foundation 

STEM Science, technology, engineering, math 

STEPUP Striving for Technological Empowerment while Providing Unlimited Potential 

SUNY State University of New York 

TRPDD Three Rivers Planning and Development District 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

UAB University of Alabama at Birmingham 

USAC Universal Service Administrative Company 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USF Universal Service Fund 

WARC West Alabama Regional Commission 

WHSI Whatley Health Services Inc. 

WVDOE West Virginia Department of Education 
Appendix E: 

Case Studies 

E-1 

E.1 CASE STUDY INVITATION LETTER TO 

GRANTEES 

To: Case Study Project Interviewee (Insert name): 

I am writing to request your assistance with an important 

evaluation of grants made by the Appalachian Regional 

Commission (ARC) for technology-based economic and 

community development projects made during the period 

2004–2010. My colleague (Deborah Watts/Jane Patterson) and 

I are teaming with the Research Triangle Institute to conduct 

an in-depth evaluation that involves an intensive review of 

documentation, a comprehensive survey of all 322 grantees 

regarding the outcomes and impacts of the funded projects, 

and site visits and interviews in at least one project selected to 

represent each of the 13 states that comprise the Appalachian 

Region. The (insert project name) was selected as the case 

study for (insert state) in this evaluation. 

Projects selected for the case study site visits are those that 

offer the best examples of particular project types or that are 

thought to have potential to offer lessons that can guide the 

ARC in working with similar projects in the future. We wish to 

gather the perspectives of key individuals who were involved 

directly in these projects, who benefitted from them, or who 

are generally situated to have valuable insights into the role of 

such efforts to contribute to local economic or community 

development. This means that we are hoping to speak 

with project managers, relevant project liaisons from 

partner organizations, beneficiaries of the projects, and 

local economic/community developers.

These conversations could take place on an individual basis or, 

perhaps more conveniently, in a group setting—if that can be 

arranged. This input will be extremely valuable to the ARC as it 

considers how its efforts may need to evolve to better assist 

the counties that constitute its service area. 

We will be traveling next week (insert dates) to project sites to 

conduct these case studies. We hope to be in (insert town 

name) between (insert dates). We will be calling you on (insert 

day) to confer on the feasibility of a site visit during the 

suggested period or, if necessary, to explore alternative dates 

that would be mutually convenient. We also hope to discuss 

with you the names of other individuals who are familiar with 
Program Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications and Technology Projects: 2004–2010

E-2 

this grant and its impacts and who might be willing to provide 

insights that could be useful to us as we work to assist the 

Appalachian Regional Commission looking forward. Please feel 

free to share this email with others that you think should be 

made aware of this request. 

Should you wish to contact me before we are able to reach you 

directly, I can be reached at the numbers below and also the 

email listed below. We look forward to talking with you and 

thank you in advance for any assistance you are able to provide 

to this evaluation. 

Jane Smith Patterson and Deborah T. Watts 

(Insert work phone) 

(Insert mobile phone) 

(Insert email) 

E.2 CASE STUDY PROTOCOL 

The case study team used a common set of questions to guide 

the case study interviews. These questions included but were 

not limited to the following: 

1. Please briefly describe the project (insert project title) that 

was funded by ARC in (insert year). 

2. What situation or conditions led to the need for this effort? 

How was the project planned and who was involved in the 

planning? What, if anything, was the role of external 

advisors? 

3. What were the goals for the project and did the project 

meet these goals within the timeline for the project? 

4. Was sustainability included in the project plans? 

5. If goals were met subsequent to the end of the project, 

please discuss the reasons for the delay. 

6. If goals were not met, please discuss the reasons for this 

outcome. 

7. Please describe any outcomes attributed to this project that 

were in addition to those defined in the original proposal to 

ARC. Has the project leveraged other benefits to the 

community/grantee? 

8. Were the goals/efforts supported by this project sustained 

beyond the endpoint of ARC support? How was this 

achieved/supported? 
Appendix E — Case Studies 

E-3 

9. What is the role of this sort of effort in community and/or 

economic development? 

10. How important was it to have ARC support? 

11. What other organizations, if any, were partners in this 

effort? What were their roles? How important was the 

participation of these partners to project outcomes and/or 

sustainability? 

12. What do you think is the role of performance measures 

applied to projects such as this one? How often should they 

be applied to optimize their usefulness? 

13. What sort of additional resources are needed by 

communities such as yours to become more competitive? 

14.Are you aware of opportunities to share experiences and 

learn from similar efforts in other communities? Would there 

be interest in such opportunities? 

15. What are the largest challenges facing your community 

today? 

16.Are there federal and/or state policies that need to change 

or be enacted to assist your development efforts? 

17. How important is it to have an advocate for policy that 

assists counties in the Appalachian region?