Evaluation of 

The Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications Projects: 1994–2000 

Study conducted by Westat 

for the Appalachian Regional Commission 

June 2003 

Evaluation of 

The Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Telecommunications Projects: 1994–2000 

Prepared by: 

Brian Kleiner 

Gary Silverstein 

Kelly Long 

Kimberley Raue 

Carl Setzer 

John Wells

Westat

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

Prepared for: 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

NOTE: The views, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors 

and do not necessarily represent the official views, opinions, or policy of the Appalachian Regional Commission. 

Acknowledgments 

The evaluation of ARC’s telecommunication 

projects was the collaborative work of a dedicated 

team. In addition to the individuals listed on the 

cover page, several other Westat staff participated 

in the conduct of this study. Tiffany Waits 

oversaw the development of the telephone survey. 

Janice Lee and telephone interviewers Kathy

Wickert and Paula Horowitz conducted the 

telephone survey; we attribute the high response 

rate to their efforts. Atsushi Miyaoka carried out 

the analyses of the study data. Glenn Nyre 

participated in two of the site visits. Our 

technical editor was Carol Litman, and our 

desktop publishing specialist was Sylvie Warren. 

Finally, we wish to acknowledge the essential 

support and advice we have received from the 

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)—

particularly Greg Bischak, who served as the 

ARC study director for the evaluation effort. 

Harry Roesch also provided critical reviews of 

the work in progress. In addition to providing 

important insights and guidance regarding the 

conduct of the study, ARC staff went out of their 

way to facilitate every facet of the evaluation 

effort. 

iii 
Executive Summary 

Telecommunications technology has become an 

integral part of daily life for much of the United 

States. Yet, as pervasive as it is, there are still 

whole regions of the country that have not been 

exposed to the full range of applications of these 

technological advancements (Federal Communiation Commission 2000). When these regions 

continue to operate with traditional, less efficient 

modes of business, governance, and education, 

they fall behind, resulting in what has been called 

“the digital divide.” There have been several 

federal initiatives aimed at reducing the digital 

divide, but despite these efforts, the region of 

Appalachia has yet to fully benefit from the 

telecommunications revolution. Aiming to 

address the disparities, the Appalachian Regional 

Commission (ARC) instituted its Telecommuniations Regional Initiative in 1995-1998, which 

was later expanded into the Information Age 

Appalachia Program in 2001. The program’s 

goal is to stimulate economic growth and improve 

the overall standard of living in the region by

funding individual projects that focus on building 

access to telecommunications infrastructure, 

infusing telecommunications technology into the 

business sector, and cultivating the skills and 

knowledge of the region’s citizens to use the 

technology effectively. This report summarizes 

findings from an evaluation study of the 70 

completed telecommunications projects funded 

by ARC between 1994 and 2000. 

STUDY OVERVIEW

At the time this study was initiated, there had 

been no systematic assessment of whether ARC’s 

telecommunications projects had lived up to their 

promise and potential, what problems they

encountered, and what ways of operating led to 

their successes and shortcomings. It was also not 

known whether projects were able to sustain 

themselves beyond the period of ARC funding, 

and for those that were, how they were able to 

expand and evolve, given available resources, 

community and stakeholder buy-in, and careful 

decisionmaking. The following report addresses 

these issues, and aims to serve as both an 

extensive description of all completed 

telecommunications projects funded by ARC 

between 1994 and 2000, as well as an exploratory

analysis of best practices. The study set out to 

address the following questions: 

What are the characteristics of communities 

and individuals that benefited from the 

projects?

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

What problems or limitations were projects 

designed to address?

What approaches did projects use to 

ameliorate these problems or limitations? To 

what extent were the approaches 

multifaceted? 

To what extent were projects serving multiple 

community stakeholders?

What outcomes were projects designed to 

achieve?

To what extent have projects accomplished 

their objectives?

What factors influenced projects’ ability to 

implement their approaches and achieve their 

objectives?

How are projects sustaining themselves?

To what extent are projects enhancing access 

to telecommunications services and 

improving the utilization of information 

services?

The evaluation employed both quantitative and 

qualitative methods to address the study’s

outcome and process questions. The approach 

included four integrated activities: 

iv 
An extensive review of project files to gain a 

better understanding of the purpose, scope, 

and goals/objectives of the 70 projects in the 

study. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

A literature review to gauge the extent of 

research on topics relating to access to 

telecommunications infrastructure and 

applications in the Appalachian region, as 

well as federal initiatives to promote 

infrastructure in the nation. 

A telephone survey to collect broad-based 

data on the implementation and impact of the 

70 telecommunications projects funded by

ARC. 

Case study site visits to 16 of the 70 projects 

to obtain more detailed information about 

project-related implementation experiences, 

accomplishments, and impacts. 

PROJECT CONTEXT

The 70 projects examined in this study reflect the 

diversity of constituencies served and the broader 

range of social, economic, and infrastructural 

contexts in Appalachia. Given ARC’s emphasis 

on creating access to infrastructure, and the fact 

that rural areas tend to lag behind cities in this 

respect, it is not surprising that most (91 percent) 

of the telecommunications projects funded by

ARC were located in whole or in part within 

nonmetropolitan areas. Across the 70 projects, 40 

(57 percent) were operating in areas that included 

economically distressed counties, compared to 30 

(43 percent) that included no distressed counties. 

ARC telecommunications projects were 

encouraged to serve at least two sectors in their 

communities. Sixty-one of the 70 respondents (87 

percent) reported that their project was intended 

to serve more than one sector. The majority (73 

percent) of projects were intended to serve the 

education sector, with 49 projects (70 percent) 

serving the economic development sector, and 43 

projects (61 percent) serving the government 

sector. Over half were also intended to serve 

business or the private sector (56 percent) and 

community or social services sectors (56 percent). 

Survey findings indicate that the 70 

telecommunications projects funded by ARC 

were overseen by a range of organization types. 

Almost half (47 percent) of the organizations 

receiving ARC telecommunications grants were 

educational organizations, and 26 percent were 

government organizations. In most cases, grant 

recipient organizations were preexisting entities 

that carried out a wide range of activities not 

necessarily limited to telecommunications 

technology. However, in some cases, grant 

recipient organizations were specifically geared 

toward the advancement of telecommunications 

technology within their regions. 

While the overall purpose of ARC-funded 

telecommunications projects is to infuse 

communities with telecommunications 

infrastructure along with the accompanying 

technical skills and knowledge, projects were 

quite varied in nature and had a wide range of 

goals. According to survey results: 

• Projects were most frequently designed to 

improve skills training and educational 

opportunities (87 percent), and to enhance 

economic development (74 percent). 

• Nearly two-thirds of the 70 projects aimed to 

enhance community development, long-term

telecommunications capabilities, and/or the 

coordination of community-wide information 

(66 percent for each). 

• Forty-two of the 70 projects (60 percent) 

aimed to improve delivery of and access to 

government services, and 35 projects (50 

percent) aimed to enhance employment 

opportunities. 

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

While the ARC-funded telecommunications 

projects were diverse in make-up and purpose, 

they shared certain features in terms of the 

activities that they carried out, the kinds of 

equipment purchased, the kinds of training 

v 
conducted, and the ways in which their approach 

was planned and promoted. The most frequently

conducted activity was providing onsite education 

and training (84 percent). In addition, 81 percent 

of the projects in the study facilitated 

communications between various regions or 

organizations, while 71 percent provided training 

specifically in the use of telecommunications 

technologies and 64 percent established new 

computer or telecommunications access centers. 

The survey revealed that most projects employed 

multiple activities as part of their approach, and 

the case studies lend credence to this conclusion. 

Telecommunications devices that were most 

likely to be made available to project participants 

included personal computers (61 percent), 

network computers (57 percent), and 

videoconferencing units (51 percent). Among the 

48 projects that helped participants gain access to 

the Internet, the most common type of Internet 

service provider (ISP) was a commercial ISP (60 

percent), followed by university or college 

networks (42 percent), K-12 school networks (40 

percent), and state or local government networks 

(35 percent). 

PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND 

IMPACT 

Survey findings and site visit interviews suggest 

that the ARC-funded telecommunications projects 

left an imprint on the communities in which they

operated, and in many cases set into motion 

further changes of import to the ways in which 

business, governance, and education are carried 

out. Most projects reported fulfilling their goals to 

the same or greater extent as expected. For 

example, of the 61 respondents who reported that 

improving skills training and educational 

opportunities was a goal for their project, 69 

percent indicated that their success was the same 

as expected, 23 percent indicated that it was more 

than expected, and 8 percent reported that it was 

less than expected. Of the 52 projects that were 

designed to enhance economic development, 71 

percent reported their success to be the same as 

expected, 14 percent indicated that it was more 

than expected, and 15 percent indicated that it 

was less than expected. 

Results of the telephone survey reveal that many

of the 70 telecommunications projects would 

never have existed, or would have been seriously

impaired, without ARC support. The case study

sites affirmed that ARC-funded telecommunications projects had a substantial impact in 

many communities, increasing access to telecommunications infrastructure, as well as 

knowledge about its applications. In addition, the 

infusion of telecommunications technology

triggered important new connections within 

communities among institutions, agencies, 

businesses, and individuals. 

Besides the tangible impacts of projects, it should 

be noted that some ARC-funded telecommunications projects had intangible, but no less 

significant, impacts on communities. The case 

studies found that projects often had the effect of 

exposing their staff and others to the potential of 

telecommunications technologies. The educational value of these projects should therefore not 

be underestimated, since it made apparent new 

possibilities and instigated thought on how these 

technologies could be applied in creative ways for 

the advancement of individuals and communities. 

PROJECT PERFORMANCE 

MEASUREMENT 

In the current environment of enhanced 

accountability, federal grant projects must be able 

to demonstrate that their activities led (or at least 

contributed) to tangible and measurable 

outcomes. In order to assess the quality of the 

outputs and outcomes anticipated by the ARC 

telecommunications projects, we conducted a 

systematic review of the proposals submitted by

the 16 case study sites. The purpose of the review 

was to evaluate the content, clarity, and 

measurability of the original outcomes proposed 

by these 16 projects, as well as to assess the 

extent to which these projects achieved their 

anticipated outcomes.i For the purposes of the 

 

i

 Since the remaining 54 ARC telecommunications projects were not 

included in this analysis, it is not possible to conclude whether the 

findings in this section pertain to the entire study sample. 

vi 
analysis, outcomes included statements that 

referred to benefits to individuals, organizations, 

or communities. Other statements that referred to 

the means to these ends were treated as outputs. 

Among the 16 case study projects, 73 outputs and 

outcomes were culled from proposals and ARC 

memorandums. Of these 73 statements, 36 (49.3 

percent) were classified as outcomes, and 37 

(50.7 percent) were classified as outputs. Ten of 

the 16 case studies had at least one numeric 

benchmark, although it should be noted that the 

six without any number benchmarks all began 

before 1998, the year in which ARC revised its 

application and reporting guidelines. Many of the 

output and outcome statements identified across 

these 16 projects were vague and imprecise—and 

an analysis of the final reports revealed that many

projects did not provide adequate information or 

data supporting their claims that these outcomes 

had been met. 

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 

BARRIERS 

Fifty-seven of the 70 projects (81 percent) 

indicated that all of their proposed activities had 

been implemented. Of the 13 projects with 

activities that were not fully or successfully

implemented, the most common factor was either 

a lack of demand for services or lack of 

participation in activities. 

The majority of ARC telecommunications 

projects encountered at least one implementation 

barrier as they carried out their various 

approaches. Specifically, 77 percent of projects 

reported at least one barrier on the survey with 

respect to administration and planning or 

implementation. The three most commonly cited 

problems among projects were underestimating 

the time or effort needed (41 percent), 

participants not fully utilizing services (40 

percent), and changes in key personnel (37 

percent). 

The case study sites, while largely successful, 

encountered and addressed a number of 

challenging and often interrelated barriers, such 

as lack of technology infrastructure, equipment 

obsolescence, underutilization of equipment, staff 

turnover or lack of expertise, and inadequate 

marketing, among others. While some of these 

problems were experienced by a majority of 

projects (e.g., delays due to worse-thananticipated technology infrastructures), others 

were unique to a given approach or locality. 

PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY AND 

EXPANSION 

An important measure of the success of an ARC 

project is its sustainability and ability to evolve in 

ways that reflect current demand and changes in 

technology. Of the 70 projects, 36 percent were 

reported to be in operation at the time of the 

telephone survey and serving a function about the 

same as that outlined in the original proposal, 

while 43 percent were reported be in operation 

and to have expanded in function. Nine (13 

percent) of the projects were operating at a 

reduced function, either serving fewer 

participants or providing fewer services. Six 

projects (9 percent) were no longer in operation, 

although these projects may have been terminal in 

nature and thus not meant to last beyond the first 

year of funding. 

Among the 30 respondents who reported in the 

telephone survey that their projects had expanded, 

28 (93 percent) said they were serving more 

individuals and 24 (80 percent) reported that the 

project was providing more services. Twenty-one 

(70 percent) reported that they had expanded in 

some other way, including expansions in the 

quantity and sophistication of the technologies 

available to users, additions of different industries 

and sectors, and becoming community leaders in 

encouraging the use of telecommunications 

technologies. 

Case study projects that were able to sustain and 

expand their efforts beyond the ARC grant period 

have employed a number of different strategies. 

Many grant recipients have the internal capacity

to support their projects’ development or have 

established partnerships to ensure access to the 

requisite expertise in technology and project 

vii 
management. In other cases, projects have 

transferred responsibility of certain aspects of the 

project to another organization that was able to 

take the project to a new level. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Taken as a whole, study findings suggest that 

ARC’s telecommunications projects made 

significant progress toward fulfilling the 

Commission’s goals of (1) building access to 

infrastructure, (2) infusing telecommunications 

technology into the business sector, and (3) 

cultivating the skills and knowledge of the 

region’s citizens to use technology effectively.

However, over three-quarters (77 percent) of the 

projects in the study encountered at least one 

implementation barrier as they carried out their 

various approaches. This was often due to the 

complex nature of the telecommunications 

activities that projects were carrying out—and the 

inherent difficulty of creating and implementing 

technology projects in communities with limited 

access to the information infrastructure. While 

these barriers were generally not severe enough to 

prevent individual projects from achieving their 

goals, they did hinder the efficiency with which 

some of these goals were achieved. 

The following recommendations reflect 

suggestions made by representatives from the 16 

case study projects, our own observations from

the site visits, and our review of best practices in 

other federal technology programs. In addition, 

they are designed to build upon ARC’s existing 

grant management structure and reinforce 

practices described in several ARC 

publications—most notably Information Age 

Appalachia, Preparing a Grant Proposal: Five 

Steps in the Proposal Writing Process (an ARC 

guide for preparing successful grant proposals), 

and Best Practices in Telecommunications (a 

description of innovative telecommunications 

activities that have been conducted with ARC 

support). 

Recommendations for Reinforcing ARC’s 

Application and Reporting Guidelines. The

following recommendations identify specific 

steps that ARC might take to further enhance the 

application and reporting guidelines for its 

telecommunications projects. 

Provide more feedback to projects during 

the application review process. Findings 

from the 16 case study sites suggest several 

areas where ARC project coordinators could 

use the review process to counsel projects 

about potential improvements to their 

proposed approach. For example, ARC 

project coordinators might take a proactive 

role in assessing the quality of the outputs 

and outcomes proposed by future 

telecommunications projects. Project 

coordinators could also use the review 

process to help applicants consider the 

feasibility of their proposed approach. 

Addressing these issues during the review 

process might help some projects avoid some

of the implementation barriers that were 

encountered by the case study sites. 

• 

• 

• 

Reinforce the ARC application materials 

provided to telecommunications applicants. The Commission has developed a 

wide range of materials designed to provide 

prospective applicants with generic guidance 

on what constitutes a successful proposal, as 

well as specific examples of the types of 

telecommunications activities it is looking to 

support. To reinforce the general blueprint 

set forth in these publications, we recommend 

that ARC develop specific examples that are 

tailored to telecommunica-tions projects. The 

purpose would be to compel applicants to 

think ahead about steps they might take to 

avoid common implementation barriers, 

measure project success, and maximize their 

likelihood of long-term sustainability. 

Provide prospective applicants with 

examples of telecommunications outputs 

and outcomes. We recommend that the ARC 

prepare supplemental materials that 

demonstrate the range of outputs and 

outcomes that might be attributed to a generic 

telecommunication project. We further 

recommend that telecommunications 

applicants be required to specify (1) which 

viii 
community goal(s) their projects are designed 

to address, (2) a numeric benchmark against 

which their progress can be assessed, (3) a 

description of the timeframe within which 

this benchmark will be achieved, (4) a 

description of the methodology that will be 

used to assess whether the numeric 

benchmark was achieved, and (5) a 

description of how and when the data will be 

reported to ARC. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Encourage applicants to describe how 

technology will affect residents and 

organizations in participating communities. These statements provide projects an 

important opportunity to describe how their 

efforts might eventually improve the 

efficiency and quality of activities performed 

by individuals and organizations. 

Reinforce ARC’s reporting structure. If 

ARC is to be in a position to identify

innovative and successful telecommunications practices, its staff will need to be able to 

systematically access more detailed 

information about the implementation and 

impact of its projects. The use of a more 

formalized reporting structure would likely

enhance project coordinators’ ability to obtain 

consistent data that can be used to assess 

project—and program—success. 

Continue to disseminate information about 

innovative telecommunications practices to 

prospective grantees. ARC currently uses a 

variety of methods to disseminate ideas about 

innovative technology applications. We 

suggest that the Commission continue to add 

new information to its web site about creative 

telecommunications projects and links to 

other useful technology-related web sites. 

We further recommend that ARC carry out 

the full range of technical assistance activities 

outlined in Information Age Appalachia—

e.g., technical assistance and consultations, an 

online “Yellow Pages” directory of regionally

based technology resources, workshops (via 

teleconference and traditional means), 

outreach to identify new public and private 

partners, the development of an advisory

board, and liaison with other federal agencies. 

Provide projects with written materials on 

high-quality evaluation practices. Most of 

the 16 case study sites did not appear to be 

emphasizing the collection of data or use of 

evaluation methods to assess whether their 

outcomes had been achieved. In light of this 

finding, ARC might provide applicants and 

grant recipients with written materials that 

describe suitable evaluation practices. 

Workshops might also be used to cover such 

topics as selecting evaluators, budgeting for 

project evaluations, devising meaningful 

study questions, determining appropriate 

methodologies for assessing whether a 

particular objective has been achieved, 

working with external evaluators, displaying 

data in a meaningful and useful manner, 

interpreting and using data, and preparing 

effective evaluation reports. 

Issues to Address with ARC 

Telecommunications Projects. The following 

recommendations address some of the significant 

barriers that hindered the implementation and 

impact of some case study sites. ARC might use 

the framework described in the previous section 

to help future telecommunications projects 

anticipate and, if possible, avoid these barriers. 

Assessing end user needs. ARC has 

traditionally funded a range of strategic 

telecommunications planning activities. In 

addition to these formal efforts, we 

recommend that the Commission encourage 

that all of its technology projects invest the 

time and energy required to determine 

whether end users need (or will use) a 

particular approach (and, if so, under what 

conditions). In most cases, this inquiry can 

be accomplished through early discussions 

with prospective end users and other 

community stakeholders about (1) the scope 

of the problem, (2) the range of desired 

outcomes—for both end users and the overall 

community, (3) the full range of acceptable 

strategies that might be used to bring about 

these desired outcomes, (4) the likelihood that 

ix 
end users will make use of new technology, 

and (5) the type of training that will be 

needed to maximize end users’ knowledge of 

how to integrate telecommunications 

technology into their work, school, or home 

environments. While such an assessment will 

not assure project success, it will likely help 

grant recipients develop a framework for 

documenting and addressing the technology

needs of their end users. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Assessing project feasibility. We 

recommend that ARC intensify its efforts to 

assure that telecommunications projects 

assess the feasibility of their proposed 

approach—either before submitting an 

application to ARC or as part of their initial 

planning process. This assessment could be 

used to identify technical barriers (e.g., poor 

quality of the existing telecommunications 

infrastructure), organizational barriers (e.g., 

lack of strong commitment among some

influential stakeholders), and management 

issues (e.g., need to hire technical staff with 

the requisite skills) that should be addressed 

before the implementation phase. It could 

also be used to delineate the range of 

technical skills that will be needed to fully

implement the proposed approach—and the 

strategy that will be used to assure that these 

skills are accessible throughout the duration 

of the project. It may not be necessary for all 

telecommunications projects to conduct a 

comprehensive feasibility study. Smaller 

projects may only need to hold ongoing 

meetings with their partners to identify likely

hurdles before they arise. 

Staff turnover. Study findings suggest that 

rural telecommunications projects are 

especially vulnerable to losing their technical 

staff to organizations that can offer higher 

wages, benefits, and career/educational 

advancement opportunities. While it may not 

be possible for rural projects to avoid such 

problems, they can be encouraged to use their 

applications to describe their plans for hiring 

and maintaining knowledgeable staff with the 

requisite technical expertise. If this issue is 

not adequately addressed in the proposal, 

ARC project coordinators might ask projects 

about their staffing plans during the review 

process. 

Staff expertise. Several case study sites 

indicated that they lacked access to 

knowledgeable technology staff. One option 

would be for ARC to encourage grant 

recipients that lack the requisite expertise to 

include funding in their proposals for outside 

technology consultants. When such 

consultants are not available in the immediate 

community, ARC might suggest other 

resources (e.g., nearby colleges and 

universities) that projects can gain access to 

for help in dealing with specific issues. 

Another option would be for ARC to develop 

guidelines that delineate the range of staff 

skills that are commonly associated with 

successful technology projects. 

Training for end users. The study

uncovered evidence that without appropriate 

training, end users may lack the requisite 

skills to fully utilize their new tools. Project 

staff and end users in the case study sites 

provided numerous recommendations as to 

how ARC’s telecommunications initiatives 

can enhance their training component, 

including (1) solicit input from end users as 

to the content and format of training, (2) 

anticipate the need to provide some end users 

with training in such basic computer skills as 

keyboard functions, (3) develop training 

exercises that demonstrate how the 

technology fits into the workplace and embed 

training in the actual duties staff will be 

performing, (4) provide trainees with written 

materials that they can share with others 

and/or refer back to at a later date, (5) tailor 

training to the skills and needs of specific 

categories of end users, and (6) provide 

follow-up training to end users. 

Project sustainability. Some survey

respondents considered their projects to be 

operational (i.e., end users were still making 

use of project resources) even though site 

visits revealed that project-related activities 

had ceased and there had been no sustained 

effort to provide end users with ongoing 

training or technical support. We therefore 

x 
recommend that ARC use its review process 

to promote a more operative definition of 

project sustainability for its telecommunications projects. For example, applicants might 

be directed to describe their plans for 

sustaining the training and technical 

assistance components of their projects 

beyond the ARC grant. ARC project 

coordinators might then use the review 

process to assess whether projects have 

adequately considered the range of strategies 

that might be used to maintain the functional 

elements of their proposed approach. 

xi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... iii 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... v 

Study Overview...................................................................................................... v 

Project Context....................................................................................................... vi 

Project Implementation .......................................................................................... vii 

Project Accomplishments and Impact .................................................................... vii 

Project Performance Measurement......................................................................... vii 

Project Implementation Barriers............................................................................. viii 

Project Sustainability and Expansion ..................................................................... viii 

Recommendations.................................................................................................. ix 

I Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 

The Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................ 3 

Access to Telecommunications Technology in Appalachia................................... 4 

Study Overview...................................................................................................... 5 

Research Questions and Study Methodology .................................................. 6 

Structure of the Report ........................................................................................... 7 

II Project Context ............................................................................................................. 9 

Community Characteristics.................................................................................... 9 

Metropolitan Status.......................................................................................... 9 

Economic Status .............................................................................................. 11 

Characteristics of Groups Receiving Services................................................. 12 

Geographic Distribution of Participants .......................................................... 13 

Sectors Served.................................................................................................. 14 

Grants and Grant Recipient Characteristics............................................................ 14 

Grant Recipient Organizations......................................................................... 14 

Source of Funding............................................................................................ 16 

Funding Amounts ............................................................................................ 16 

Project Goals.................................................................................................... 17 

Summary ................................................................................................................ 18 

1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Chapter Page 

III Project Implementation................................................................................................. 19 

Project Activities.................................................................................................... 19 

Extent of ARC Funding of Activities..................................................................... 25 

Project Equipment .................................................................................................. 25 

Types of Equipment Obtained by ARC Telecommunications Projects........... 26 

Project Training...................................................................................................... 27 

Topics Covered................................................................................................ 28 

Training Providers ........................................................................................... 29 

Training Recipients.......................................................................................... 29 

Training Facilities............................................................................................ 30 

Materials Developed ........................................................................................ 30 

Best Training Practices.................................................................................... 30 

Project Planning ..................................................................................................... 30 

Best Planning Practices.................................................................................... 31 

Project Promotion................................................................................................... 31 

Best Promotion Practices................................................................................. 33 

Summary ................................................................................................................ 33 

IV Project Accomplishments and Impact........................................................................... 35 

Achievement of Goals............................................................................................ 35 

Impact of the ARC Grants...................................................................................... 35 

Respondents’ Perceptions of Projects’ Most Important Outcome ................... 36 

Number of Beneficiaries.................................................................................. 37 

Impact on Beneficiaries ................................................................................... 37 

Benefiting Agencies......................................................................................... 40 

Intangible Impacts............................................................................................ 41 

Summary ................................................................................................................ 41 

2 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Chapter Page 

V Measurement of Project Performance........................................................................... 45 

Policy Context........................................................................................................ 45 

Types of Outcomes and Outputs Anticipated by ARC Telecommunications 

Projects............................................................................................................. 48 

Extent to Which Case Study Projects Achieved Their Intended Outcomes and 

Outputs............................................................................................................. 52 

Summary ................................................................................................................ 53 

VI Implementation Barriers ............................................................................................... 55 

Extent to Which Projects Encountered Implementation Barriers........................... 55 

Implementation Barriers at Case Study Sites......................................................... 57 

Technology Barriers ........................................................................................ 57 

Administrative and Planning Barriers.............................................................. 59 

Summary ................................................................................................................ 61 

VII Project Sustainability and Expansion............................................................................ 63 

Project Status.......................................................................................................... 63 

Projects That Sustained or Expanded Operations Over Time.......................... 63 

Projects That Had Reduced Functions or Were No Longer Operational......... 65 

Comparison of Survey and Case Study Findings on Project Sustainability .... 65 

Relationship Between Project Status and ARC Funding Amount................... 67 

Steps Taken to Sustain Projects Over Time ........................................................... 67 

Internal Capacity.............................................................................................. 67 

Partnerships...................................................................................................... 68 

Ongoing Funding ............................................................................................. 68 

Buy-In of Key Stakeholders ............................................................................ 69 

Transfer of Ownership ..................................................................................... 70 

Summary ................................................................................................................ 70 

VIII Summary and Recommendations.................................................................................. 73 

Recommendations for Reinforcing ARC’s Application and Reporting 

Guidelines........................................................................................................ 74 

Issues to Address with ARC Telecommunications Projects................................... 81 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

3 
LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix Page 

A Summary of Case Study Findings............................................................................. A-1 

B Notes on the Technical Approach ............................................................................. B-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

Chapter 2 

2-1 Number and percent of projects by source of ARC funding (n=70)......................... 16 

2-2 Number and percent of projects by ARC funding amounts and matching funds 

(n=70)........................................................................................................................ 17 

2-3 Number and percent of projects reporting various goals (n=70)............................... 18 

Chapter 4 

4-1 Extent of achievement of goals................................................................................. 36 

Chapter 5 

5-1 Distribution of outputs and outcomes in the case study sites.................................... 48 

5-2 Types and numbers of outputs and outcomes for the 16 case studies....................... 49 

Chapter 7 

7-1 Number and percent of projects that reported various ways their projects have 

changed since the ARC grant.................................................................................... 64 

4 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

Chapter 2 

2-1 Percent of projects by metropolitan status (n=70)..................................................... 9 

2-2 Percent of projects by economic status (n=70) ......................................................... 11 

2-3 Percent of ARC projects designed to provide services, resources, or other 

assistance to various groups (n=70) .......................................................................... 12 

2-4 Geographic distribution of direct and indirect beneficiaries of ARC 

telecommunications projects (n=70) ......................................................................... 13 

2-5 Percent of projects serving various sectors (n=70) ................................................... 14 

2-6 Percent of ARC projects, by type of grant recipient organization (n=70)................. 15 

Chapter 3 

3-1 Percent of projects conducting activities and percent conducting activities with 

ARC funding, by activity type (n=70) ...................................................................... 20 

3-2 Projects’ use of telecommunications technologies, by type of technology (n=70)... 26 

3-3 Telecommunications devices made available to project participants (n=70)............ 26 

3-4 Types of Internet service providers used by project participants (n=48).................. 27 

Chapter 4 

4-1 Percent of projects reporting the most likely outcome if the project had not 

received ARC funding (n=70)................................................................................... 36 

4-2 Among projects that would have been partially implemented without ARC 

funding (n=26), the percent reporting various effects............................................... 37 

Chapter 6 

6-1 Percent of projects reporting number of problems in implementing project 

activities (n=70) ........................................................................................................ 55 

6-2 Percent of projects reporting implementation problems, by problem type ............... 56 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

5 
LIST OF FIGURES 

(continued) 

Figure Page 

Chapter 7 

7-1 Current status of projects (n=70)............................................................................... 63 

7-2 Percent of ARC projects reporting various factors that facilitated project 

expansion (n=30)....................................................................................................... 64 

7-3 Number of ARC projects reporting various factors that have contributed to 

project no longer operating or operating at reduced scope (n=15)............................ 66 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit Page 

Chapter 1 

1-1 Federal initiatives to enhance access to telecommunications technology................. 2 

Chapter 3 

3-1 Project activities........................................................................................................ 21 

3-2 Alleghany High School Cyber Campus activities..................................................... 23 

3-3 Info-Structure Technology Assistance Center (ITAC) activities.............................. 23 

3-4 RESA Regional Telecommunication Special Initiative activities............................. 24 

3-5 Advantage Valley activities ...................................................................................... 24 

3-6 Tompkins County Collaborative Communications activities.................................... 25 

3-7 Telecommunications equipment purchased by case study sites, 

by projects’ primary focus......................................................................................... 28 

Chapter 4 

4-1 Examples of respondents’ perceptions of the most important accomplishment to 

result from the ARC grant......................................................................................... 42 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

(continued) 

6 
Exhibit Page 

Chapter 5 

5-1 Logic model for generic telecommunications project............................................... 47 

5-2 Examples of outcomes identified by ARC telecommunications projects ................. 50 

5-3 Examples of outputs identified by ARC telecommunications projects..................... 51 

Chapter 8 

8-1 ARC application submission format and guideline checklist: Current 

instructions for the project narrative ......................................................................... 75 

8-2 Potential enhancements to ARC’s submission format and guideline checklist for 

telecommunications projects..................................................................................... 76 

8-3 Example of potential ARC guidelines for telecommunications final reports............ 80 

7 
I. Introduction

Telecommunications technology has become an 

integral part of daily life for much of the United 

States. It allows for the transfer of information in 

ways never conceived before the latter part of the 

20th century, and has become an established part 

of the workplace, schools, and home. Its influence 

is pervasive and far-reaching, and there is growing 

consensus that telecommunications technology

strengthens economies and improves the lives of 

human beings. 

Yet, as pervasive as it has become, there are still 

whole regions of the country that have not been 

exposed to the full range of applications of these 

technological advancements (Federal Communication Commission 2000). Many of these regions 

are geographically isolated, and/or impoverished, 

and have not been able to procure the infrastructure 

necessary for “linking up.” When these regions 

continue to operate with traditional, less efficient 

modes of business, governance, and education, they

fall behind, resulting in what has been called “the 

digital divide.” 

 

In response to these disparities, there have been 

several federal initiatives aimed at reducing the 

digital divide. These include Federal Universal 

Service programs, such as the E-Rate Program and 

the Rural Health Program, as well as other smaller 

federal programs geared toward improving 

telecommunications connectivity and capacity, such 

as the Technology Opportunities Program, the 

Community Technology Centers Initiative, and the 

Neighborhood Networks Program (see exhibit 1-1 

for a summary of these programs). All are trying to 

facilitate the infusion of technology into places that 

need it for economic development and education. 

Despite these federal initiatives, the region of 

Appalachia has yet to fully benefit from the 

telecommunications revolution. According to the 

report Links to the Future: The Role of Information 

and Telecommunications Technology in Appalachian 

Economic Development (Oden and Strover 2002, i), 

while digital technology and its applications grew 

rapidly during the 1990s in Appalachia, “the 

telecommunications infra-structure in the 

Appalachian Region is less developed than that in 

other parts of the country, and compares negatively

to national averages on various broadband 

indicators.” Although some Appalachian 

communities are well on the way toward 

incorporating telecommunications technologies into 

their businesses, schools, and homes, many still lack 

the infrastructure and know-how needed to close the 

divide. 

Aiming to address the disparities, the Appalachian 

Regional Commission (ARC) instituted its 

Telecommunications Regional Initiative in 1995-

1998, which was later expanded into the Information 

Age Appalachia Program in 2001. The program’s 

goal is to stimulate economic growth and improve the 

overall standard of living in the region by funding 

projects that focus on building access to 

infrastructure, infusing telecommunications 

technology into the business sector, and cultivating 

the skills and knowledge of the region’s citizens to 

use the technology effectively. 

The Information Age Appalachia program has a 

unique fit within the field of telecommunications 

initiatives, since it is designed to support projects that 

are less likely to find funding from federal programs. 

In some cases, the grant amounts are too small to be 

funded by other programs. In other cases, 

Appalachian communities may have 

8 
Exhibit 1-1. Federal initiatives to enhance access to telecommunications technology 

The federal government, through various agencies, has implemented a series of programs designed to directly

address the lack of access to telecommunications technology in rural and other underserved areas in the nation. 

While some of these programs, outlined below, differ in their approaches or foci, all share one common goal—

allowing those separated by the “digital divide” to access telecommunications services and, ultimately, to share in 

the economic, educational, and other benefits that traditionally occur as a result. 

Universal Service Fund for Schools and Libraries. The Federal Communications Commission’s Universal 

Service Fund for Schools and Libraries, or the E-rate, provides discounts on the costs of telecommunications 

services and equipment to all public and private schools and libraries. Eligible services range from basic local and 

long-distance phone services and Internet access services to the acquisition and installation of equipment to provide 

network wiring within school and library buildings. Discounts range from 20 percent to 90 percent, depending on 

economic need and rural location. This program recognizes that while the United States is at the forefront of both 

the technological and telecommunications revolutions, there are segments of the population for which access to 

computers and the Internet is significantly lower. 

Community Technology Centers Initiative. The U.S. Department of Education’s Community Technology Centers 

(CTC) Initiative intends to help bridge the telecommunications divide in a similar manner by supporting Community

Technology Center start-ups and/or expansions in distressed urban and rural communities. CTCs provide computer 

and Internet access as well as educational services using information technology. Moreover, these centers provide 

people who are already socially or economically disadvantaged with opportunities to gain access to 

telecommunications services and/or engage with a range of technologies in a community setting. 

Technology Opportunities Program. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Technology Opportunities Program

(TOP), formerly the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP), promotes 

increased availability and use of digital network technologies in both the public and nonprofit sectors.* TOP, 

administered since 1994 by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is a highly

competitive, merit-based grant program that aims to bring the benefits of digital network technologies to 

communities throughout the entire country. It provides matching grants to fund projects that demonstrate how 

digital networks support lifelong learning for all Americans, help public safety officials protect the public, assist in

the delivery of health care and public health services, and foster communication, resource sharing, and economic

development within rural and urban communities. In short, TOP projects are intended to be nationally significant 

demonstrations of how digital network technologies can be used to extend and improve the delivery of valuable

services and opportunities to all Americans. Furthermore, the benefits of TOP’s grants are broadly distributed across 

the country, especially in rural and underserved communities. 

Rural Utilities Service. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

works with cooperatives, nonprofit associations, public bodies, and for-profit utilities to help rural utilities expand 

and keep their technology up to date. RUS grants seek to establish new and vital services, such as distance learning 

and telemedicine, through the use of telecommunications technology. 

Other Federal Programs. Two other, more narrowly focused federal programs include the National Science 

Foundation’s Connections to the Internet and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Internet Connection Grants. 

The former is aimed exclusively at helping to provide advanced telecommunications capabilities to educational 

institutions and consists of three parts: 1) connections for K-12 institutions, libraries, and museums that use 

innovative technologies for Internet access; 2) connections for higher education institutions (these awards are 

limited to connections for research or educational uses); and 3) connections for research and education institutions

and facilities that have meritorious applications with special network requirements. 

Internet Connections Grants, provided by the National Library of Medicine of NIH, consist of grants to healthrelated institutions that wish to provide Internet access to the professionals and clients of their organization, thereby 

intending to benefit health professionals, scientists, and citizens. The program was created in recognition that many

health-related organizations, particularly smaller ones and those in rural or urban underserved areas, lack resources 

to initiate Internet access or to enhance low-bandwidth dial-up connectivity. 

*The President’s recently released federal budget proposes to eliminate the Technology Opportunities Program in fiscal year 2003. The proposal 

to eliminate the program, if enacted, would not affect grants awarded in FY 2002 or projects implemented prior to FY 2002.

9 
difficulty winning competitive grants. This is 

because many of the federal programs prefer to 

fund the latest, most innovative technologies, and 

many Appalachian communities lack access to 

even the most basic telecommunications 

technologies. Also, ARC’s Information Age 

Appalachia program is more focused on 

addressing the specific, local needs of 

communities. The Information Age Appalachia 

program focuses on four main areas: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 

Access and infrastructure—Broadening the 

availability of advanced telecommunications 

services by promoting increased 

infrastructure investments from both private 

sector and government sources. 

Education and training—Ensuring that the 

region is supporting today’s workforce as 

well as developing the workforce of 

tomorrow by integrating technology into K12 and continuing education programs, plus 

expanding community awareness and training 

programs. 

E-commerce—Improving the competitiveness 

of businesses in the region by increasing the 

adoption of e-commerce practices. 

Technology sector job creation—Increasing 

employment in the technology sector for 

producer and user industries through 

investment and entrepreneurship support. 

The projects funded by ARC fall roughly into 

these four categories, although in practice there is 

considerable overlap between them.

1 This report 

summarizes findings from an evaluation study of 

the 70 telecommunications projects funded by

ARC between 1994 and 2000.2

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

1

 The four categories described in the publication Information Age 

Appalachia were not in use during the period 1994-2000. They are 

employed in this report as a tool for organizing and distinguishing 

projects by type. For the purposes of this report, e-commerce and 

technology sector job creation were collapsed into a single 

category (called “e-commerce/technology sector job creation”),

because the case study projects related to business development 

did not fall neatly into either of these two categories. 

2

 All of the 70 projects were closed (i.e., no longer receiving ARC 

funding) at the time of the study. 

THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL 

COMMISSION

The Appalachian Regional Commission was 

created in 1965 to promote economic and social 

development in the region. It is a federal-state 

partnership designed to foster self-sustaining 

economic development and improved quality of 

life. As such, it is an agency that functions as a 

catalyst, drawing upon the resources of the 

federal government, the participating states, and 

local resources. Although considerable progress 

has been made in its more than three decades of 

support, the ARC Strategic Plan: 1997-2002 

identifies five key areas of need: 

Developing a knowledgeable and skilled 

population; 

Supporting the region’s physical 

infrastructure; 

Building local and regional capacity; 

Creating a dynamic economic base; and 

Fostering healthy people. 

To accomplish these five strategic goals, ARC 

provides financial and technical support to local, 

regional, and multistate projects through its Area 

Development Programs. The process for 

awarding these grants reflects the underlying 

partnership between the Commission and 

participating states, as well as the need to give 

local communities a voice in determining how 

ARC funds are to be allocated. As such, most of 

the projects included in the study originated at the 

local or state level. 

Each year, the 13 states of Appalachia prepare 

individual annual strategy statements and 

spending plans. These documents contain statelevel goals (which are aligned with ARC’s five 

strategic goals) and corresponding proposals for 

each of the specific projects that are being 

recommended for funding. In some states, these 

10 
initiatives are developed to reflect state and/or 

local priorities. In others, applicants submit 

proposals based on needs identified in their local 

communities. 

Once approved by the state’s development 

agency, a state’s recommendations for project 

funding are submitted to ARC. Each proposed 

project is then reviewed by ARC project 

coordinators and, in most cases, approved by the 

federal co-chair. Project coordinators can 

negotiate changes to the proposed project with 

state program managers. In most cases, 

adjustments are made to timetables and budgets. 

More recently, a limited number of projects 

originate and are funded each year directly

through the Commission and ARC set-asides. 

These projects are subject to the same policies 

and procedures as those funded through 

individual states. 

ACCESS TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

TECHNOLOGY IN APPALACHIA 

Research indicates that increases in access to 

telecommunications services lead to significant 

improvements in local and regional economies 

and contribute to more rapid economic 

development (Oden and Strover 2002, 5-7; U.S. 

Department of Commerce 1999). However, 

telecommunications services tend to be deployed 

less frequently and/or to a lesser extent in rural 

areas, namely, those areas in which development 

is most needed. This, in turn, has an enormous 

impact on Appalachia, considering that 42 

percent of the region’s population is rural, 

compared with 20 percent nationwide. The 

combination of these factors has contributed to 

disproportionately low rates of access to 

telecommunications technology for the residents 

of Appalachia. For some, in fact, there is 

virtually no access. 

This lack of access, however, has not gone 

unnoticed. Partly in response to these conditions, 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first 

major overhaul of telecommunications law in 

over 60 years, was enacted. The goal of this new 

law was to facilitate access to communications 

business, and to allow any communications 

business to compete in any market. Perhaps more 

importantly, the act was designed to allow larger 

numbers of people, including those in 

traditionally underserved and rural areas, to gain 

access to local and long distance telephone 

service, cable programming and other video 

services, broadcast services, and services 

provided to schools. Nevertheless, after more 

than five years, an abundance of data reveals that 

access to telecommunications technology, as well 

as the benefits that ordinarily result, lag in rural 

areas behind that of the nation as a whole (Oden 

and Strover 2002). 

For example, in 2000, only 47 percent of the zip 

codes in Appalachia had one or more high-speed 

service subscribers, compared to 59 percent of 

those nationwide. Of the 13 states in the region, 

12 had rates lower than the nationwide average 

with respect to high-speed Internet access. With 

the exception of South Carolina, at 59 percent, all 

states in the region were at least 5 percentage 

points below the national average. Several states 

had significantly lower rates, such as Kentucky

and Mississippi, with 13 and 32 percent, 

respectively (Oden and Strover 2002, 29).3

Furthermore, neither digital subscriber lines 

(DSL) nor cable modem service, two of the most 

extensively utilized broadband services, were 

widely available in rural areas or in Appalachia in 

particular. Access to these services was 

especially sparse in Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, 

and West Virginia. Generally speaking, the 

likelihood of receiving one or both of these 

services declined with decreased population 

density. In towns with 500,000 to 1 million 

residents, over 73 percent of residents had access 

to cable modems. In towns of 50,000 to 100,000, 

only 26 percent were served; and in towns of 

5,000 to 10,000, 5 percent had such access. In 

fact, in 2000, most counties in Appalachia had no 

 

3 This is compounded by the fact that large businesses, which often 

have their own high-speed lines, may compose all or a significant 

portion of high-speed subscribers within a particular zip code,

thereby artificially inflating these numbers. In such cases, a 

particular zip code may indeed have at least one high-speed 

subscriber, yet this does not necessarily mean there are wider 

community benefits. 

11 
cable modem service, and when they did, the 

providers were generally located in larger cities 

or towns and metropolitan areas (Stroden and 

Oden 2001, 4). 

Like cable modem service, DSL deployment has 

for the most part occurred in cities of 10,000 or 

more, and most localities with DSL have 

populations of 25,000 or higher (Oden and 

Strover 2002, 27-28). While deployment has 

occurred in towns with relatively small 

populations, it tends to occur in affluent localities. 

What makes access to DSL and similar services 

especially important is that there is a statistically

significant relationship between the presence of 

DSL and the economic vitality of a county.

The number of households with computers in 

Appalachia also fell below the national averages. 

In 2000, 51 percent of households in the nation 

had computers. However, with the exceptions of 

Maryland and Virginia, states in Appalachia fell 

below this number.4

 In Mississippi, for example, 

just over one-third (37.2 percent) of households 

had a computer (Oden and Strover 2002, 24). The 

same can be said for the number of households 

with Internet access. Again, with the exceptions 

of Maryland and Virginia, states in the region fell 

well below the national average of 41.5 percent; 

of the 11 remaining states, 5 were at 35 percent or 

below, with the lowest, Mississippi, at only 26.3 

percent. 

Another indication of the general lack of access to 

telecommunications technology is the dearth of 

competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC) 

operating in Appalachia. Most of the states 

within the region have fairly low numbers of 

CLECs (with the exception of New York, 

Georgia, and Pennsylvania). The numbers of 

CLECs are especially low in Kentucky and 

Mississippi (Oden and Strover 2002, 30-33). 

Overall, competition in the region is sparse and 

concentrated in metropolitan areas. The 

implications of this include a lack of telephone 

competition and a subsequent lack of market 

incentives for CLECs to deploy advanced 

telecommunications services such as those 

described above. 

 

4 The exception of Maryland and Virginia may be due to the fact that 

both states have urban and suburban areas, outside of Appalachia,

that have high concentrations of home computers. 

STUDY OVERVIEW 

At the time this study was initiated, there had 

been no systematic assessment of whether ARC’s 

telecommunications projects had lived up to their 

promise and potential, what problems they

encountered, and what ways of operating led to 

their successes and shortcomings. It was also not 

known whether projects were able to sustain 

themselves beyond the period of ARC funding. 

For those that were still operational, there were 

no data on how they were able to expand and 

evolve, given available resources, community and 

stakeholder buy-in, and careful decisionmaking. 

The following report addresses these issues, and 

aims to serve as both an extensive description of 

the implementation and impact of all completed 

telecommunications projects funded by ARC 

between 1994 and 2000, as well as an exploratory

analysis of best practices. This report also points 

to ways in which future projects funded (in part 

or in whole) by ARC’s telecommunications 

initiative can maximize the effectiveness of their 

activities, and avoid the pitfalls that can hinder or 

derail their mission. 

12 
Research Questions and Study Methodology 

The study set out to address the following 

questions: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

What are the characteristics of communities 

and individuals that benefited from the 

projects?

What problems or limitations were projects 

designed to address?

What approaches did projects use to 

ameliorate these problems or limitations? To 

what extent were the approaches 

multifaceted? 

To what extent were projects serving multiple 

community stakeholders?

What outcomes were projects designed to 

achieve?

To what extent have projects accomplished 

their objectives?

What factors influenced projects’ ability to 

implement their approaches and achieve their 

objectives?

How are projects sustaining themselves?

To what extent are projects enhancing access 

to telecommunications services and 

improving the utilization of information 

services?

The evaluation employed both quantitative and 

qualitative methods to address the study’s

outcome and process questions. The approach 

included four integrated activities: 

An extensive review of project files to gain a 

better understanding of the purpose, scope, 

and goals/objectives of the 70 projects in the 

study. The document review was also used to 

guide the construction of the questionnaire 

and the design and site selection of the case 

studies. 

A literature review to gauge the extent of 

research on topics relating to access to 

telecommunications infrastructure and 

applications in the Appalachian region, as 

well as federal initiatives to promote 

infrastructure in the nation. 

A telephone survey to collect broad-based 

data on the implementation and impact of the 

70 telecommunications projects funded by

ARC. The survey was designed to collect a 

set of data regarding project characteristics, 

implementation practices, outcomes, 

equipment, and current status. It also 

obtained narrative information on the extent 

to which a project’s original outcomes were 

achieved. 

Case study site visits to 16 of the 70 projects 

to obtain more detailed information about 

project-related implementation experiences, 

accomplishments, and impacts. The case 

studies allowed us to explore in greater detail 

the experiences of projects that have 

implemented potentially promising practices, 

to verify project outcomes, and to gain an 

understanding of best practices. 

Appendix A describes the case study

methodology, findings, and lessons learned. 

Appendix B provides further information on the 

other study methodologies, including the 

telephone survey. 

Site visit findings reflect a purposefully selected 

segment of the study universe. By conducting the 

telephone survey first, findings could be used to 

inform the selection of case study sites. The final 

pool of case study sites had achieved at least 

some of their intended outcomes and appeared to 

have sustained themselves over time. As such, 

any conclusions drawn from the site visits may

not be representative of the overall study sample. 

However, the case studies do shed light on the 

best practices of telecommunications projects, as 

well as the range of obstacles encountered. 

Findings from the telephone survey and the case 

studies complement one another, and are 

interwoven throughout the substantive chapters of 

this report. Generalizations drawn from the case 

13 
studies may be based on observations from

several, but not necessarily all, sites. 

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 

The remainder of this report presents the 

evaluation’s substantive findings. Chapter 2 

portrays the various contexts in which the 

telecommunications projects were embedded, 

including characteristics such as economic status, 

metropolitan status (urban, rural, both), sectors 

served, and intended beneficiaries, as well as 

including features of the grants and the grant 

recipients. Chapter 3 presents findings from the 

survey and case studies on project implementtation. Chapter 4 addresses project achievement 

and impact, and chapter 5 describes and critiques 

ARC’s system of measuring project achievement 

and impact. Chapter 6 illustrates problems 

encountered in project implementation. Chapter 7 

addresses whether projects were able to continue 

beyond the period of ARC funding, with an 

analysis of why some projects evolved and 

expanded over time. The final chapter presents a 

summary of the findings and recommendations 

for ARC and its future telecommunication 

projects. Appendix A discusses case study

methods, findings and lessons learned, and 

appendix B addresses issues involving the 

technical approach of the study, with emphasis on 

the telephone survey. 

14 
II. Project Context

To redress the disparities of the digital divide, 

ARC and the 13 states that compose Appalachia 

fund projects geared toward developing the 

telecommunications infrastructure of communities in the region and fortifying the knowledge 

and skills of residents, so that they can make 

effective use of the technologies. This chapter 

describes the contexts within which 70 

telecommunications projects funded by ARC 

between 1994 and 2000 were implemented, 

including features of the communities in which 

they operated, grant and grant recipient 

characteristics, and project origins. 

15 

COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS

ARC telecommunications projects were funded in 

and across a wide variety of communities in 

Appalachia. This section reports on the 

characteristics of these communities, such as 

metropolitan status, economic status, the groups 

within communities that received services, and 

the geographic distribution of direct and indirect 

beneficiaries. Given the complementary nature of 

the telephone survey and case studies, findings 

from both are presented in tandem. Appendix A 

discusses case study site selection and the extent 

to which the sites were representative of the 

universe of closed ARC telecommunications 

projects. 

Metropolitan Status 

ARC funds for telecommunications technology

went to a wide range of community types—most 

were rural, but some were urban, or a mix of 

urban and rural. Given ARC’s emphasis on 

creating access to infrastructure, and the fact that 

rural areas tend to lag behind cities in this respect, 

it is not surprising that most of the 

telecommunications projects funded by ARC 

were located in whole or in part within 

nonmetropolitan areas (91 percent). Twenty-nine 

(41 percent) of the 70 projects were operating 

exclusively in nonmetropolitan areas, and 35 (50 

percent) were operating in regions that included 

both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas 

(figure 2-1). The remaining 6 projects (9 percent) 

were located exclusively in metropolitan areas. 

Figure 2-1 

Percent of projects by metropolitan status 

(n=70) 

50% 

(n=35) 41%

(n=29)

9%

(n=6) Metropolitan only

Both metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan

Nonmetropolitan only

SOURCE: ARC database. 

Many of the case study projects were operating in 

isolated, rural communities. Site visitors to 

several such projects reported the following: 

Jackson County Distance Learning: 

“Generally speaking, Scottsboro residents 

feel somewhat ‘isolated’ from the world 

around them. Jackson County is one of the 

largest counties in Alabama in terms of 

square miles and has a widely dispersed 

population. This makes it difficult for 

residents to communicate with others and for 

the county and city to deliver many basic 

services. Scottsboro is also nearly 100 miles 

• 
away from any major metropolitan area, such 

as Huntsville or Birmingham, which makes it 

difficult for residents to gain access to muchneeded opportunities, such as higher 

education. Although there is a two-year 

junior college located in Jackson County,

those wishing to pursue a bachelor’s or 

graduate degree must travel over 90 minutes 

outside of Scottsboro to the nearest four-year 

university.” (Scottsboro, Alabama) 

RESA Regional Telecommunication Special 

Initiative: “The community served by this 

project is comprised of the three westernmost 

counties in Maryland, including Allegany, 

Garrett, and Washington counties. Two of 

the three counties are rural, relatively

underdeveloped, and are relatively small in 

population when compared to other counties 

within the state. All three counties also have 

above average rates of unemployment, and 

the citizens of these counties are below 

average in terms of education level and per 

capita income. This project was designed to 

address the traditional disparities in access to 

telecommunications technology that occur in 

rural or underdeveloped areas, namely the 

lack of access to telecommunications services 

and the benefits (increased efficiency, etc.) 

that often occur as a result of such access.” 

(Cumberland, Maryland) 

• 

• Alleghany High School Cyber Campus: 

“Alleghany County is comprised of 235 

square miles in the Blue Ridge Mountains of 

northwestern North Carolina. According to 

the 2000 Census, the county has a population 

of approximately 10,677 people, 1,817 of 

whom reside in Sparta, the county’s only

municipality. Sparta’s geographical isolation 

and significant distance from interstate 

highways weaken its appeal as a site for 

prospective businesses.” (Sparta, North 

Carolina) 

As a result of their isolation, many of these 

communities have historically lacked access to 

critical resources (e.g., industry, transportation). 

This geographical isolation prevents many new 

businesses and industries from entering these 

areas. Among many of these communities, 

telecommunications technology is viewed as a 

viable means of overcoming geographical 

isolation and reaching out to once apprehensive 

businesses and industries. 

It should be noted that not all of the rural areas 

visited during this study were economically

distressed. For example, in Lewisburg, 

Pennsylvania, the communities that benefited 

from the Info-Structure Technology Assistance 

Center (ITAC) and the PA SourceNet projects 

were located in the 11 counties that compose the 

Susquehanna region of central Pennsylvania. 

Nine of those counties are classified as 

“transitional,” one is “competitive,” and one has 

achieved “attainment” status. These counties 

comprise dozens of small towns, many with 

populations only in the hundreds. Although the 

project is located in what is for the most part a 

rural area, there are numerous industries. 

Other case study projects were located (at least in 

part) in more heavily populated, less rural 

regions. While still lacking in 

telecommunications infrastructure in important 

respects, some of these areas profited from

healthy local economies and greater access to 

resources. For example, as South Carolina’s most 

populous county with more than 350,900 

residents, Greenville, site of the SC-Upstate-Info 

(SCUI) telecommunications project, is situated in 

the northwestern corner of the state and is part of 

one of the nation’s fastest growing areas, the I-85 

corridor. Three of the six counties in the upstate 

region of the state—Spartanburg, Greenville, and 

Anderson—make up one metropolitan statistical 

area (MSA) and contribute to one-third of the 

economic growth in the state. 

16 
Other case study projects located in metropolitan 

regions suffered less from geographic isolation 

than the economic stagnation resulting from the 

loss of industry and employment. For example, 

one project is located in a community where the 

economy is relatively stagnant, having reached its 

peak during the 1930s and 1940s. Since few jobs 

are available outside of the steel industry, many

young people have left in search of employment 

elsewhere. However, according to respondents, 

there is some resistance to the establishment of 

new business and industry in and around this 

community, since these might detract from the 

steel industry. This ARC-funded 

telecommunications project was faced with these 

political, economic, and social barriers. 

Economic Status 

Telecommunications infrastructure in

economically depressed communities lags behind 

the access available in more affluent 

communities.5

 Across the 70 projects, 40 (57 

percent) were operating in areas that included 

economically distressed counties,6

 compared to 

30 (43 percent) that included no distressed 

counties (figure 2-2). 

 

5 The Distressed Counties Program, begun in 1983, was designed to 

provide a mechanism for setting aside funds for the region’s most 

impoverished communities. Every year, each of the 406 counties in 

the region is designated as one of four economic categories based 

upon a number of available indicators. Distressed counties are 

eligible for additional funding and lower matching requirements: 

20 percent of total project cost, compared to 50 percent for 

transitional counties and 80 percent for competitive counties. 

Attainment counties are not eligible to receive ARC funding. 

6

 All project counties need not have been considered distressed for 

the project to be placed in this category. 

Figure 2-2 

Percent of projects by economic status (n=70) 

43%

(n=30)

57%

(n=40)

At least one

distressed county

No distressed

counties

SOURCE: ARC database. 

The sites selected for the case studies were fairly

representative of the economic status of the 70 

telecommunications projects funded by ARC. Of 

the 16 sites, 6 were located in areas that included 

distressed counties. Many of the site visit 

communities suffered from a variety of problems 

due to chronic unemployment, low wages, and 

endemic poverty. Some communities that had 

traditionally relied heavily on a particular 

industry (e.g., steel, textiles, coal) were not able 

to fill the void after that industry had collapsed or 

moved elsewhere. For example, MIRA’s

(Managing Information with Rural America) 

focus was on counties in the southeastern part of 

Ohio, where coal mining brought both initial 

prosperity and subsequent decline to many

communities. Sparsely populated, the area is 

plagued with high unemployment and high 

poverty rates. Many of the counties in this area 

were reliant on the coal industry and have been 

unable to develop other economic opportunities to 

replace the void that the collapse of coal mining 

has created. Some of these economically

distressed communities are caught in a scenario in 

which the lack of opportunity leads talented 

young people away in search of employment 

elsewhere, which scares off new businesses that 

are reluctant to move in because of the lack of a 

skilled labor force. 

Other projects were located in nondistressed 

communities. For example, in Painted Post, New 

York, the region profits from a vigorous economy

fueled by high technology manufacturing as well 

as retail trade and service sectors. Still other 

17 
projects were located in regions that included 

both distressed and nondistressed communities. 

For instance, Clermont County, in Bethel, Ohio,

has been one of the fastest growing counties in 

the state, both in population and employment. 

However, the county comprises two very

different areas. The western section, which 

includes a suburb of Cincinnati, is a booming area 

with population growth and accompanying 

commercial and industrial expansion. The eastern 

section, in which the U.S. Grant Joint Vocational 

School District is located, is characterized by high 

unemployment, slow development, and a higher 

percentage of poverty. Despite the relative 

wealth of the western side of the county,

Clermont still has a very serious problem with 

school dropouts and poverty, ranking well above 

the state average in both respects. 

Characteristics of Groups Receiving Services 

Many ARC projects are designed to provide 

services to typically underserved populations. 

Sixty-four of the 70 survey respondents reported 

that their projects were designed to provide direct 

services, resources, or other assistance to people 

living in geographically isolated or rural areas 

(91 percent) (figure 2-3). In addition, the 

majority of projects served people living in 

poverty (64 percent) and those who were 

unemployed or underemployed (60 percent). 

Fewer projects were designed to provide direct 

services, resources, or other assistance to the 

elderly (40 percent), the disabled (34 percent), 

underrepresented minorities (30 percent), illiterate 

people (30 percent), people living in urban or 

inner-city areas (11 percent), or other groups (21 

percent). 

Figure 2-3 

Percent of ARC projects designed to provide 

services, resources, or other assistance to 

various groups (n=70)

Characteristics of people

21

11

30

30

34

40

60

64

91

0 20 40 60 80 10

Other groups (n=15)

Urban or inner-city (n=8)

Illiterate (n=21)

Underrepresented minorities (n=21)

Disabled (n=24)

Elderly (n=28)

Unemployed or underemployed (n=42)

Living in poverty (n=45)

Geographically isolated or rural (n=64)

Percent

0

NOTE: Projects may be serving multiple groups. Groups may

overlap.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees. 

While survey responses indicate that projects 

were designed to address the needs of various 

underserved populations in Appalachian 

communities, site visit findings appear to mitigate 

the implication that projects actually provided 

such services in a systematic and comprehensive 

manner across these subgroups. For example, 7 

of the 16 case study sites reported in the 

telephone survey that their projects were designed 

to serve the elderly. However, of these seven 

projects, elderly people were served only

tangentially in practice, if at all. It is possible that 

the survey question stem “designed to provide 

direct services, resources, or other assistance to 

people who...” was rather loosely interpreted by

some respondents to mean “designed to possibly

affect (directly or indirectly) any people who....” 

Thus, the survey findings in figure 2-3 must be 

considered with some caution. 

The case studies suggest that not all projects were 

designed to serve end users directly, but rather to 

affect change at the organizational or regional 

levels. For example, the Advantage Valley

project in West Virginia aimed to create and 

foster a regional entity to promote economic 

development. For this project, one could not 

point to individual beneficiaries. Similarly, the 

18 
Susquehanna Economic Development

Association-Council of Governments (SEDACOG) Info-Structure Technology Assistance 

Center in Pennsylvania was designed to serve 

municipal and county governments. 

Geographic Distribution of Participants 

Survey respondents were asked to describe the 

geographic distribution of the individuals who 

were expected to benefit both directly and 

indirectly from their ARC grants. Findings show 

that projects typically served people in two or 

more but not all ARC counties within a single 

state. Specifically, 28 of the 70 respondents (40 

percent) reported that direct beneficiaries (i.e., 

those with direct access to project resources or 

equipment) were in two or more but not all ARC 

counties within a single state (figure 2-4). In 

addition, 20 projects (29 percent) were directly

serving people in a single county, and 15 projects 

(21 percent) were directly serving all ARC 

counties in a single state. 

Twenty-five of the 70 projects (36 percent) 

reported that indirect beneficiaries (i.e., people 

who did not have direct access to project 

resources or equipment) were in two or more but 

not all ARC counties within a single state. 

Eleven of the 70 projects (16 percent) had indirect 

beneficiaries who were in a single county, and 14 

projects (20 percent) had indirect beneficiaries 

who were in all ARC counties in a single state. 

These findings indicate that ARC-funded 

telecommunications projects varied considerably

in scope with respect to the geographical 

distribution of direct and indirect beneficiaries. 

Figure 2-4 

Geographic distribution of direct and indirect beneficiaries of ARC telecommunications projects 

(n=70) 

29

40

21

3 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

A single

county 

(n=20)

Two or

more but 

not all 

ARC 

counties

within a 

single state

(n=28)

All ARC

counties

within a

single state

(n=15)

Two or

more states

(n=2)

Other

geographic

area

(n=5)

Direct access to equipment or resources

Percent

16

36

20

11

9 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

A single

county

(n=11)

All ARC 

counties

within a 

single state

(n=14)

Other

geographic 

area (n=6)

Indirect access to equipment or resources

Percent

Two or more

but not all 

ARC counties 

within a

single state 

(n=25)

Two or

more

states

(n=8)

Not 

applicable

(n=6)

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

19 
Sectors Served 

ARC telecommunications projects were 

encouraged to serve at least two sectors in their 

communities, since this promotes the 

development of partnerships, commitment at the 

local level, and the leveraging of matching funds. 

According to survey findings, of the 70 projects, 

61 were intended to serve more than one sector. 

The remaining nine respondents reported that 

their project was intended to serve only one 

sector. The majority of projects were intended to 

serve the education sector (73 percent), with 70 

percent serving the economic development sector, 

and 61 percent serving the government sector 

(figure 2-5). Over half were also intended to 

serve principally business development purposes 

(56 percent) and community or social services 

sectors (56 percent). Seven projects also were 

intended to serve the tourism and recreation 

sector (“other”). 

Figure 2-5 

Percent of projects serving various sectors 

(n=70)

10

31

40

56

56

61

70

73

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other (n=7)

Library (n=22)

Health care (n=28)

Community/social services (n=39)

Business/private (n=39)

Government (n=43)

Economic development (n=49)

Education (n=51)

Percent

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

The case studies reveal that in practice, projects 

tended to focus heavily on a single sector, to the 

exclusion of other sectors. For example, one 

project that reported working with two sectors 

(i.e., the government and education sectors) 

aimed to work with county government units to 

help them select the most appropriate 

telecommunications equipment for their needs 

and then train them in the use of that equipment. 

It is not clear, however, how this project served 

the education sector (as reported in the survey). 

Another project aimed to promote economic 

development by way of a marketing campaign to 

establish a regional economic entity. Although 

this project was reported to serve all of the sectors 

listed in the survey, in practice these sectors were 

served only in a very indirect way (in that what 

benefits the region economically benefits all of its 

sectors). These findings suggest that some

projects have difficulty integrating the two-sector 

requirement into project practice, especially in 

cases where project aims are very narrowly or 

broadly defined. 

GRANTS AND GRANT RECIPIENT 

CHARACTERISTICS

This section provides information about the 

organizations responsible for overseeing and 

implementing ARC grants, the most recent year 

of their grant funding, the sources and amounts of 

ARC funding received, and overall goals of the 

grants. 

Grant Recipient Organizations 

Survey findings indicate that the 70 

telecommunications projects funded by ARC 

were overseen by a range of organization types. 

Almost half (47 percent) of the organizations 

receiving ARC telecommunications grants were 

educational organizations, 26 percent were 

government organizations, and 20 percent 

identified themselves as other types of 

organizations (figure 2-6). Other types included 

public/private partnerships, libraries, not-forprofit organizations, and Local Development 

Districts. 

20 
Figure 2-6 

Percent of ARC projects, by type of grant 

recipient organization (n=70)

20

1

6

26

47

0 10 20 30 40

Some other type

(n=14)

Private (n=1)

Community or

social service (n=4)

Government

(n=18)

Educational (n=33)

Percent

50

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

Among the case study projects, seven were 

overseen by educational organizations, four by

government organizations, two by community or 

social services organizations, and three by other 

types of organizations. Some examples follow: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

SEDA-COG Info-Structure Technology 

Assistance Center: SEDA-COG 

(Susquehanna Economic Development 

Association-Council of Governments) is a 

regional, multi-county development agency

that, under the guidance of a public policy

board, provides leadership, expertise, and 

services to communities, businesses, 

institutions, and residents. Recipients of 

SEDA-COG services fall into three broad 

categories—business, communities, and 

county and municipal governments. The 

organization helps central Pennsylvania’s 

communities address issues in such areas as 

housing, recreation, downtown revitalization, 

and public infrastructure. Business services 

include financing, sales to the government, 

and assistance with exporting. Graphics, 

printing, and electronic mapping are among 

services available to the region’s county and 

local governments. Additional services 

include rail freight assistance, weatherization, 

and help for nonprofit organizations. 

(Lewisburg, Pennsylvania) 

Medical and Government Internet Coalition 

Network (MAGICnet): MAGICnet was created 

by a partnership between the College of 

Osteopathic Medicine (COM) at Ohio 

University and the Institute for Local 

Government Administration and Rural 

Development (ILGARD). COM’s primary

mission is to train physicians for practice in 

underserved regions in Ohio. ILGARD 

provides applied research and technical 

assistance to government and development 

organizations in Southeast Ohio and the rest of 

the state. (Athens, Ohio) 

Big Sandy Telecommunications Center. In 

1994, the Kentucky Science & Technology

Corporation (KSTC) was seeking to develop 

two rural telecommunications centers—one in 

eastern and one in western Kentucky. The 

communities of Pikeville and Elizabethtown 

emerged from a competitive selection process 

to partner with the Council in exploring rural 

telecommunications alternatives. In response to 

this competition, local community leaders 

established Big Sandy Telecommuting 

Services, Inc. (BSTSI), a nonprofit communitybased corporation that was designed to obtain 

funding and operate the telecommunications 

center. The mission of BSTSI is to “anticipate 

emerging technologies and their applications to 

the region, thereby assuring a competitive equal 

footing on the information-community driven 

global economy.” As such, the Corporation 

was established to (1) facilitate regionwide 

access to other Commonwealth, national, and 

global communities via telecommunications; 

(2) facilitate community-wide telecommunications literacy; (3) plan and develop a regional 

telecommunications center at Pikeville; and (4) 

serve as a regional telecommunications-interest 

network mana-ger, and provide information and 

brokering support to individuals, community

groups, and members of the business 

community interested in and/or involved in 

telecommunications. (Pikeville, Kentucky) 

Tompkins County Collaborative Communications Project: The Human Services 

21 
Coalition of Tompkins County, Inc., is the 

human service planning body for Tompkins 

County and coordinates the overall planning 

of human service programs and activities in 

the county. It is a private nonprofit 

corporation, which was formed as an 

umbrella agency in 1975 as an offshoot of 

another organization. The mission of HSC is 

to “encourage cooperation among providers 

to develop well-organized service delivery

systems and provide links to local, regional, 

and national decisionmakers, including 

recommendations for action.” The three 

areas within HSC are Information and 

Referral (I&R), the Health Planning Council, 

and Human Service Planning. The ARC 

telecommunications project fell under the 

I&R unit. The three programs of the HSC 

work together to enhance consumer access to 

services, to facilitate cooperation among 

service providers, and to advise community

funders. (Ithaca, New York) 

In most cases, grant recipient organizations were 

preexisting entities that carried out a wide range 

of activities not necessarily limited to 

telecommunications technology. However, in 

some cases, grant recipient organizations were 

specifically geared toward the advancement of 

telecommunications technology within their 

regions. 

Source of Funding 

The 70 telecommunications projects were 

distributed across all 13 states of Appalachia. 

Ohio was home to nearly one-fifth of the projects 

(19 percent) (table 2-1). In addition, Virginia (11 

percent), New York (10 percent), and West 

Virginia (10 percent) had more projects than 

other states. The Commission itself directly

funded 8 projects (11 percent), mostly through its 

Regional Initiatives program. The case studies 

were also distributed across a range of states. 

Table 2-1 

Number and percent of projects by source of 

ARC funding (n=70) 

Source of funding Number Percent 

Alabama ................................. 4 6

Georgia................................... 1 1

Kentucky ................................ 3 4

Maryland ................................ 3 4

Mississippi ............................. 2 3

North Carolina........................ 5 7

New York............................... 7 10

Ohio........................................ 13 19

Pennsylvania .......................... 4 6

South Carolina........................ 3 4

Tennessee ............................... 2 3

Virginia .................................. 8 11

West Virginia ......................... 7 10

Commission............................ 8 11

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: ARC database. 

Funding Amounts 

ARC funds telecommunications projects at a 

variety of levels, commensurate with the 

proposed project tasks and technologies 

employed. The average ARC funding amount per 

project was $165,276. ARC project funding 

amounts ranged from a low of $10,000 to highs of 

$898,990 and $1,293,000.7

 Funding levels were 

relatively evenly spread across the range, with 26 

projects (37 percent) receiving $50,000 or less, 16 

projects (23 percent) receiving $50,001 to 

$100,000, 12 projects (17 percent) receiving 

$100,001 to $200,000, and 16 projects (23 

percent) receiving more than $200,000 (table 2-

2). In total, ARC provided over 11.5 million 

dollars in funding to the 70 telecommunications 

projects included in this study. 

 

7

 Funding amounts presented are according to the ARC database. 

22 
Table 2-2 

Number and percent of projects by ARC 

funding amounts and matching funds (n=70) 

Funding level Number Percent 

ARC funding amount 

$50,000 or less.................... 26 37

 $50,001–$100,000.............. 16 23

 $100,001–$200,000............ 12 17

 More than $200,000 ........... 16 23

Matching funds 

$50,000 or less.................... 42 60

 $50,001–$100,000.............. 9 13

 $100,001–$200,000............ 9 13

 More than $200,000 ........... 10 14

SOURCE: ARC database. 

Projects were able to leverage considerable local 

funding. Matching funds varied widely, from

nothing to a high of $1,272,000.8

 Forty-two

projects (60 percent) had $50,000 or less in 

matching funds, 9 projects (13 percent) had from

$50,001 to $100,000, 9 projects (13 percent) had 

from $100,001 to $200,000, and 10 projects (14 

percent) had more than $200,000. 

The ARC database also revealed the following: 

• 

• 

• 

 

The average ARC funding amount for 

projects in nonmetropolitan areas was 

$142,000. The average was $124,000 for 

projects in metropolitan areas, and $192,000 

for projects that were in both metropolitan 

and nonmetropolitan areas (not shown in 

tables). 

The average ARC funding amount for 

projects in communities categorized as 

distressed was $176,000, compared to 

$150,000 for projects in nondistressed 

communities (not shown in tables). 

The average ARC funding amount was 

$121,000 educational organizations, 

$186,000 for government organizations, 

$19,000 for private sector organizations, 

$183,000 for community or social service 

organizations, and $249,000 for other 

organization types (not shown in tables). 

• 

8

 In addition to funds received from ARC and local matching funds, 

projects may have received funds from other sources. 

Given the case study selection criteria, the 

sites for case studies on average had larger 

funding amounts than the average project in 

the study universe. The average ARC 

funding amount of the case studies was 

$294,000 (not shown in tables). 

Project Goals 

Appalachian communities are becoming aware of 

the utility of telecommunications technology in 

their own economic development. While it is not 

viewed as a panacea for all the economic 

difficulties experienced in communities across 

Appalachia, it appears that communities are 

increasingly recognizing telecommunications 

technology as an important tool for addressing 

their economic woes. 

The overall purpose of ARC-funded telecommunications projects is to infuse communities 

with telecommunications infra-structure along 

with the accompanying technical skills and 

knowledge. Nonetheless, projects were quite 

varied in nature and had a wide range of goals. 

According to survey results, projects were most 

frequently designed to improve skills training and 

educational opportunities (reported by 61 of the 

70 projects, 87 percent), and to enhance economic 

development (74 percent) (table 2-3). Nearly

two-thirds of the projects aimed to enhance 

community development, long-term

telecommunications capabilities, and/or the 

coordination of community-wide information (66 

percent for each). Forty-two of the 70 projects 

(60 percent) aimed to improve delivery of and 

access to government services, and 35 projects 

(50 percent) aimed to enhance employment 

opportunities. 

Table 2-3 

Number and percent of projects reporting 

various goals (n=70) 

23 
Goal 

Number of

projects with 

various goals

Percent of

projects with 

various goals

Improve skills training and education 

opportunities........................................ 61 87% 

Enhance economic development............. 52 74

Enhance community development .......... 46 66

Enhance long-term telecommunications 

needs.................................................... 46 66

Enhance coordination of communitywide information and communication 

services................................................ 46 66

Improve delivery of and access to 

government services............................ 42 60 

Enhance employment opportunities........ 35 50

Improve delivery of and access to social 

services................................................ 22 31

Improve consumers’ access to quality 

health care............................................ 17 24

Something else ........................................ 8 11

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees. 

Of the 70 projects, 15 (21 percent) were reported 

to have from one to three of the goals listed in the 

survey, 30 (43 percent) had from four to six of the 

goals listed, and 25 (36 percent) had from seven 

to nine (not shown in tables). That so many of 

the projects reported a number of different goals 

is not surprising—with respect to the infusion of 

telecommunications technology, education, 

economics, communities, governance, and 

technology are linked in a complicated web of 

interrelationships. Goals in one of these domains 

are commonly related to goals in others. 

According to the survey results, the goals of the 

16 case study sites were aligned with those of the 

other ARC-funded telecommunications projects. 

SUMMARY

The characteristics of the 70 ARC-funded 

telecommunications projects were as diverse as 

the communities in which they were situated. 

Many were located in rural, economically

distressed areas, just where one might expect the 

digital divide to be most pronounced. Grant 

recipients varied as well, and included 

government agencies, educational institutions, 

regional economic development agencies, 

community and social services organizations, and 

libraries. Projects varied in geographical scope, 

and beneficiaries of project activities included a 

wide range of underserved groups. Given this 

extensive variation in project context, it is not 

surprising that project approaches and activities 

were diverse as well. This topic is discussed in 

the next chapter. 

24 
 Project Implementation III.

While the ARC-funded telecommunications 

projects were diverse in make-up and purpose, 

they shared certain features in terms of the 

activities that they carried out, the kinds of 

equipment purchased, the kinds of training 

conducted, and the ways in which projects were 

planned and promoted. This chapter examines 

features of the project activities, including 

discussion of issues related to equipment, 

training, planning, and promotion. 

PROJECT ACTIVITIES 

The telephone survey was designed to gather 

information about the types of activities 

conducted by each of the telecommunications 

projects. The most frequently cited activity on 

the survey was providing onsite education and 

training (59 projects, 84 percent) (figure 3-1). 

Fifty-seven of the 70 projects (81 percent) were 

designed to facilitate communications between 

various regions or organizations, and 71 percent 

provided training specifically in the use of 

telecommunications technology. Forty-five of the 

70 projects (64 percent) established new 

computer or telecommunications access centers, 

and 50 percent established new links between 

existing networks. 

Most projects employed multiple activities as part 

of their approach. According to survey findings, 

projects conducted an average of 8 of the 16 total 

activities listed in the survey. Twenty-three of 

the projects (33 percent) reported from 1 to 5 

activities, 30 projects (43 percent) conducted 

from 6 to 10 activities, and the remaining 17 

projects (24 percent) reported from 11 to 16 of 

the activities listed in the survey (not shown in 

tables). 

The case studies lend credence to the finding that 

projects were multifaceted in their activities and 

approaches (exhibit 3-1). Most of the case study

projects employed a variety of activities that were 

geared toward the establishment (i.e., the 

installation, maintenance, or upgrade) and/or 

application of infrastructure. Many projects also 

arranged training and education in how to employ

specific technologies. Activities included 

provision of Internet service; purchase and 

installation of computers, videoconferencing 

equipment, and software; establishment of 

connections between organizations; web site 

design; technical assistance; and marketing. 

Exhibits 3-2 through 3-6 provide detailed 

examples of the activities carried out by a subset 

of the case studies. 

25 
Figure 3-1 

Percent of projects conducting activities and percent conducting activities with ARC funding, by 

activity type (n=70)

11

16

27

30

31

26

34

34

37

30

39

39

41

60

63

73

74 84

81

71

64

50

44

43

42

39

39

37

36

34

34

31

17

11

0 20 40 60 80

Percent

100

Percent conducting

with ARC funding

Percent conducting

with any funding

Facilitate communications between organizations

Establish a new access center

Establish new links between networks

Develop a distance learning system

Establish new distance learning, teleconferencing, or telemedicine systems

Provide onsite education and training

Develop new database or link existing databases to the Internet

Provide training in telecommunications

Install video conferencing equipment

Develop materials for use of telecommunications technology

Upgrade an existing access center

Conduct an assessment of technology capabilities

Conduct a telecommunications marketing effort

Develop materials for educational training

Develop a strategic plan

Upgrade an existing distance learning, teleconferencing, or telemedicine systems

Create a network of certified trainers

NOTE: Projects could report multiple activities. 

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

26 
Exhibit 3-1. Project activities 

Project Name Activities 

Access to Information Infrastructure 

Big Sandy Telecommunications 

Center (Pikeville, KY) 

Serve as an Internet service provider; provide training to businesses and residents in the 

use of the Internet and specific software packages; provide novice businesses and other 

entities (e.g., schools, doctors) with technical support in using computers and the Internet; 

obtain land, purchase equipment, and build a telecommunications access site that could 

serve the region’s distance learning and teleconferencing. In practice, much of the effort 

focused on establishing and maintaining the community’s only Internet service provider 

(ISP).

Golden Triangle 

Telecommunications Network 

System (Starkville, MS) 

Connect the seven county governments with one another; connect agencies within each 

county with one another; create web pages for each county; purchase videoconferencing 

equipment; provide technical assistance for the seven county governments that compose 

the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District. 

Medical and Government Internet 

Coalition Network (MAGICnet) 

(Athens, OH) 

Create a community-based network with access to bulletin boards, e-mail, and 

information databases; provide training and technical assistance to project participants; 

assist local ISPs in expanding their service to underserved areas of southeast Ohio. 

SEDA-COG Info-Structure 

Technology Assistance Center 

(Lewisburg, PA) 

Provide basic and advanced telecommunications services, including access to e-mail, the 

Internet, word processing, and database services, in order to assure self-sufficient, rapid, 

integrated access to data essential for daily governmental operations. 

Southern Tier Central 

Telecommunications Initiative 

(Painted Post, NY) 

Purchase and install telecommunications equipment; provide training in the use of the 

telecommunications equipment and computer programs. 

Sunday Creek Associates/ARC 

Managing Information with Rural 

America (Shawnee, OH) 

Expand organizational capacity through the upgrade of computers, the purchase of a 

copier machine, and the pursuit of other funding opportunities; strengthen its ability to 

continue its support of local initiatives, participate in collaborations, and provide technical 

and project assistance to emerging Community Teams.

Tompkins County Collaborative 

Communications (Ithaca, NY) 

Primary focus to get all of the participating county agencies up to a minimum standard of 

equipment and accessibility in order to increase communication methods and capability; 

to be accomplished through a combination of equipment purchases, training, assistance in 

developing web sites, and technological support. 

Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Alleghany High School Cyber 

Campus (Sparta, NC) 

Purchase and install equipment for distance learning, Internet courses, and enrichment 

lessons; institute an internship program; establish a Community Technology Learning 

Center/Computer Lab. 

Grant Career Center 

Conference/Computer Center 

(Bethel, OH) 

Establish a video teleconferencing center and a computer center. 

Jackson County Distance Learning 

(Scottsboro, AL) 

In 1998, the 21st Century Council received an ARC matching grant for Phase I of the 

Jackson County Distance Learning project and placed video teleconferencing (VTC) 

equipment at the career center, at Scottsboro High School, and at the Earnest Pruett Center 

of Technology. With a second ARC matching grant in 2001, Phase II added five 

additional sites to the network. 

Jefferson Community College 

Computer Labs (Steubenville, OH) 

Install a computations lab in which computer science courses could be taught; upgrade the 

computer-aided design (CAD) laboratory, including installation of equipment and 

software that made possible the most currently available computer-based design 

capabilities. 

27 
Exhibit 3-1. Project activities (continued) 

Project Name Activities 

Education, Training, and Workforce Development (continued)

RESA Regional 

Telecommunication Special 

Initiative (Cumberland, MD) 

Establish and operate a help desk at Frostburg State University; develop web pages for 

various businesses, organizations, government agencies, and other entities in the Western 

Maryland region. 

E-Commerce Readiness/Tech Sector Employment 

Advantage Valley (Huntington, 

WV) 

Develop and maintain a web site to promote regionalization; market the region to 

businesses and other organizations at the local and national level. 

SC-Upstate-Info (SCUI) 

(Greenville, SC) 

Create a community web site that would provide information on the six counties of the 

upstate region of South Carolina and offer links to local resources; provide training 

(mostly in web design) so that local government, libraries, etc., could create and maintain 

their own web pages. 

PA SourceNet (Lewisburg, PA) 

Devise an Internet software-based program (PA SourceNet) to allow anyone to search for 

Pennsylvania businesses using a variety of methods (by industry, by location, by company

size, etc.), and to allow companies to search for potential suppliers, distributors, and 

customers. 

Technology 2020 (Oak Ridge, TN) 

Provide services such as business consultation and facilities to help market new products 

at low cost to incubating companies; set up facilities for meetings and seminars that 

included videoconferencing and other presentation materials; provide demonstrations on 

the uses and abilities of e-commerce. 

28 
Exhibit 3-2. Alleghany High School 

Cyber Campus activities 

Distance learning, Internet courses, and enrichment

lessons. Through collaboration with Wilkes Community

College, juniors and seniors can enroll in college courses 

taught through the cyber campus. Tuition for these college 

courses is free due to the Huskin’s Bill, and students receive 

both high school and college credit. Students can take 

courses offered over the Internet as well, and the North 

Carolina School of Science and Math offers enrichment 

lessons that supplement regular courses taught by teachers at 

the high school (e.g. a DNA unit for a biology class). 

Internship program. The cyber campus instituted an 

internship program, which offers programs in video, 

graphics, business applications, and computer hardware. 

Interns learn various software packages such as Microsoft 

Excel, Publisher, PhotoShop, and Corel Draw, and use these 

skills to assist teachers and fellow students with technology

applications, as well as to work on community projects like 

web page design for nonprofit organizations. 

Professional development and continuing education.

Teachers are offered courses in technology, subject matter, 

and end-of-course and end-of-grade tests. They can gain 

recertification credits, earn master’s degrees, complete 

courses for their doctorate, and collaborate with other 

teachers across the state in disciplines like physics and 

astronomy. Professional groups have also taken advantage 

of the cyber campus for similar activities. 

Community Technology Learning Center/Computer

Lab. Part of the center’s mission is to provide public access

to computers and the Internet. The lab is open 6 days a 

week, and community members can make use of the 

software, set up e-mail accounts, and receive technical 

assistance and training. Classes are taught by interns from 

the cyber campus and include Introduction to Computers, 

Introduction to the Internet, and Microsoft Publisher. There 

is also a class taught for Spanish-speaking members of the 

community by a bilingual student at the high school. 

Technology in the classrooms. Teachers have multimedia 

computers in their classrooms and can post course syllabi 

and homework assignments online. Although used 

infrequently, teachers have the ability to administer their 

tests online. Additionally, this past school year was the first 

time students were required to incorporate technology into 

their senior projects, using PowerPoint, video, music, or 

some combination of these. Students then presented their 

projects in the Cybertorium, formerly the band room, which 

was converted into a fully equipped, technologically rich 

auditorium. 

Exhibit 3-3. Info-Structure Technology 

Assistance Center (ITAC) activities 

The Info-Structure Technology Assistance Center (ITAC), 

located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, aimed to strengthen the 

region’s information infrastructure by integrating community

networks and thus facilitate communications between 

various government agencies. The project conducted its 

activities as part of a multistage process. 

Needs assessment. The first stage consisted of finding out 

which capabilities or services were most needed by each 

county. The standard approach taken by project staff was to 

contact government personnel directly and inquire about 

what types of assistance they needed to perform their duties

and functions more effectively and efficiently. 

Equipment purchase. The second stage involved 

determining what types of equipment would best serve the 

needs specified and assisting in the acquisition process (e.g., 

negotiating with software vendors). 

Equipment installation. The third stage involved installing 

or providing telecommunications equipment and/or 

equipping buildings and individual offices with the physical 

infrastructure (e.g., wiring) needed to utilize such 

equipment. 

Training. The fourth and final stage involved training 

government personnel in how to utilize this equipment in 

performing their routine administrative functions and other 

functions that had previously been unavailable, as well as

providing subsequent technical assistance as needed. 

29 
Exhibit 3-4. 

RESA Regional Telecommunication 

Special Initiative activities 

Telecommunications capacity. In earlier stages of the 

project, ARC funds were used for equipment and technical 

assistance to be provided to local school systems, 

government agencies and institutions, and higher education 

institutions to develop or increase telecommunications 

capacity. Most of these efforts were carried out in the mid1990s, when Internet access and other technologies were 

available primarily in higher income, heavily populated 

areas of the state and the country. For example, these efforts 

provided both Frostburg State University and Allegany

College with their first Internet capabilities. 

Help desk. The most recent activity of the Regional 

Education Service Agency (RESA) Regional 

Telecommunication Special Initiative, located in 

Cumberland, Maryland, was the establishment and operation 

of a help desk at Frostburg State University. This help desk 

was staffed mainly by students, who provided basic 

computer assistance to students, faculty, and administration. 

These student interns from Frostburg State also developed 

web pages for various businesses, organizations, government 

agencies, and other entities in the Western Maryland region. 

Student interns from four of the region’s higher education 

institutions, including Allegany College, Frostburg State 

University, Garrett Community College, and Hagerstown 

Junior College, were assigned to work with 15 major 

agencies to develop and maintain their telecommunications 

systems and to help with training in the use of 

telecommunications technology. 

Exhibit 3-5. Advantage Valley activities 

Web site. The aim of the Advantage Valley project in 

Huntington, West Virginia, was to foster economic 

regionalization of the tri-state corner of West Virginia, Ohio, 

and Kentucky. A key component of this campaign was the 

establishment of an Advantage Valley web site. The web site 

would be instrumental in linking area businesses, and would 

provide community information for community members as 

well as for prospective employers interested in learning 

about the region (its transportation, schools, shopping, 

safety, etc.). The web site would showcase, under one 

umbrella, all that was offered and available in the region in a 

dynamic, nonstatic manner. 

Marketing. A second major activity component of the 

project was its marketing campaign. This campaign, the 

centerpiece of the effort to unify the region under the name

of Advantage Valley, consisted of live demonstrations to 

local businesses on the web and its capabilities; 

popularization and internalization of the name Advantage 

Valley within the region; posting Advantage Valley

advertisements in Site Magazine (dedicated to news sites for 

businesses), other national magazines, and local newspapers; 

the creation of an Advantage Valley video; wining and 

dining of local executives; and annual Advantage Valley

dinners that included local businesses, which promoted the 

achievements of community members and businesses. 

Training. A third project activity was training seminars to 

educate businesses about web design. These were held early

on at Marshall University and locations in Ashland, 

Kentucky. Staff to assist in the training were provided by

participating companies. The seminars were free and were 

open to anyone with an interest in web for business 

applications. 

30 
Exhibit 3-6. Tompkins County Collaborative 

Communications activities 

Identifying needs. Prior to applying for the ARC grant, the 

Human Services Coalition (HSC) of Tompkins County, Inc., 

conducted a survey of county agencies. This survey was 

designed to assess agency interest in participating in a 

project that would be designed to purchase computer 

equipment and upgrade staff capacity to make use of 

technology in the workplace. 

A technology consultant worked with individual agencies to 

identify the computer and training needs of individual staff. 

(A number of these human service agencies had no existing 

access to computers or the Internet.) These consultations

helped assure that agency staff would make optimal use of 

the equipment and training provided through the ARC grant. 

It also enabled HSC to tailor its equipment and training to 

the needs of each participating agency. 

Equipment purchase and training. HSC purchased 

various types of equipment for the agencies, including laptop 

and desktop computers, servers, memory, scanners, drives, 

printers, and modems. The grant also funded Internet 

access, networking, and the purchase of software packages. 

Finally, based upon the training needs identified through the 

county agency surveys, HSC arranged for beginner and 

intermediate level training in e-mail, the Internet, Word, 

Excel, and Access.

EXTENT OF ARC FUNDING OF 

ACTIVITIES

The telephone survey collected information about 

the extent to which specific project activities were 

funded by ARC.9

 According to survey results, 44 

of the 59 projects (74 percent) that provided 

onsite education and training did so with ARC 

funds (see figure 3-1). Forty-two of the 57 

projects (74 percent) that were designed to 

facilitate communications between various 

regions or organizations used ARC funds to do 

so. Thirty-two of the 50 projects (64 percent) that 

provided training specifically in the use of 

telecommunications technology and 27 of the 45 

(60 percent) that established new computer or 

telecommunications access centers did so with 

ARC funds. 

 

9

 ARC-funded activities include those activities for which respondents indicated that ARC provided some or all of the funding.

Projects most often reported that ARC funded a 

portion of a given activity. The activity most 

likely to be funded entirely by ARC was 

providing onsite education and training (reported 

by 8 of the 59 projects that conducted this 

activity, 14 percent) (not shown in tables). The 

two activities least likely to receive any funding 

from ARC were developing a strategic plan for 

long-term telecommunications needs, and 

conducting an assessment of technology

capabilities. Six of the 25 projects that reported 

developing a strategic plan (24 percent), and 7 of 

the 29 projects that reported conducting an 

assessment of technology capabilities (24 percent) 

indicated that no ARC funds were involved for 

these activities. 

PROJECT EQUIPMENT 

Throughout the country, computers and 

technology have become an integral component 

of conducting business and educational activities. 

Telecommunications technology, whether 

through desktop computers or videoconferencing 

equipment, permits greater and richer 

opportunities for government and business 

relationships to prosper. In addition, educational 

institutions are linking together to share 

instructional resources via telecommuting 

technologies, enriching the education of students 

nationally and worldwide. Despite their potential, 

however, these technologies are constantly

evolving, and their infusion into communities 

presents significant challenges. The 70 ARCfunded telecommunications projects were 

implemented at a time of rapid technological 

change, and were therefore faced with critical 

decisions regarding equipment purchase. 

31 
Types of Equipment Obtained by ARC 

Telecommunications Projects 

Survey respondents most commonly reported one 

of two types of telecommunications connection 

technologies: digital services, such as ISDN, 

DSL, and T1 (70 percent), and dial-up telephone 

lines and modems (60 percent) (figure 3-2). 

Satellite services (12 projects, 17 percent), cable 

modems (14 percent), wireless services (9 

percent), and other telecommunications 

technologies (16 percent) were used considerably

less often, most likely because these services are 

simply not available in many rural areas. 

Respondents could have reported more than one 

type of telecommunications connection 

technology. Survey results indicate that 60 

percent of the projects made use of more than one 

type of connection technology, whereas 40 

percent used only one type.10 

Figure 3-2 

Projects’ use of telecommunications 

technologies, by type of technology (n=70) 

16

9

15

17

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 10

Percent

Digital service (n=49)

Dial-up telephone lines and modems

(n=42)

Satellite services (n=12)

Other telecommunications technologies

(n=11)

Cable modems (n=10)

Wireless services (n=6)

0

NOTE: Respondents could report more than one type of 

telecommunications technology.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

Telecommunications devices that projects were 

most likely to make available to project 

participants included personal computers (61 

percent), network computers (57 percent), and 

videoconferencing units (51 percent) (figure 3-3). 

Nearly one-quarter (24 percent) used other 

devices, such as video production equipment and 

imaging equipment. 

 

10Neither the survey nor the case studies examined why some

projects made use of more than one type of telecommunications 

connection technology. 

Figure 3-3 

Telecommunications devices made available to 

project participants (n=70) 

24

51

57

61

0 20 40 60 80 1

Percent

Personal computers (n=43)

Network computers (n=40)

Video teleconferencing uni

00

t

(n=36)

Other telecommunications devices

(n=17)

NOTE: Respondents could report more than one type of 

telecommunications device.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

Among the 48 projects that helped participants 

gain access to the Internet, the most common type 

of Internet service provider (ISP) was a 

commercial ISP (60 percent), followed by

university or college networks (42 percent), K-12 

school networks (40 percent), and state or local 

government networks (35 percent) (figure 3-4). 

Fewer used Internet services provided by the 

project (25 percent), nonprofit community

networks (25 percent), or some other type of 

Internet service provider (4 percent). 

Survey results indicate that many projects offered 

multiple types of Internet connections to 

participants: 61 percent of the projects made use 

of more than one type of ISP, whereas 39 percent 

either used only one type or none at all. Neither 

the survey results nor the case studies examined 

why multiple types of Internet connections were 

used by some projects and whether those projects 

with multiple Internet connections employed 

32 
them concurrently or one after the other over the 

course of their grant periods. 

Figure 3-4 

Types of Internet service providers used by 

project participants (n=48) 

4

25

25

35

40

42

60

0 20 40 60 80 10

Percent

University or college network (n=20)

State or local government network

(n=17)

Nonprofit community network (n=12)

Commercial Internet service provide

0

r

(n=29)

K-12 school network (n=19)

Project provides Internet

services to participants (n=12)

Other type of Internet service provider

(n=2)

NOTE: Projects could report more than one type of Internet service 

provider.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

Thirteen of the 16 case study sites visited 

indicated that they used ARC funds to purchase at 

least one computer. Uses of these computers 

included running software, data management, 

overall office efficiency, training, teaching, 

computer labs, as well as access to local services, 

state resources, and global connectivity. 

Six of the 16 case study projects also purchased 

videoconferencing equipment, including cameras, 

microphones, speakers, and projectors, among 

other types of equipment necessary for 

telecommunications. Other common peripheral 

equipment purchased included printers, scanners, 

copiers, modems, software, and office furniture. 

Exhibit 3-7 summarizes the range of equipment 

that was acquired with ARC support, across the 

16 case study sites. 

In addition to the equipment purchased by each 

case study site, donations provided by local 

institutions appear to have made an important 

impact on several projects. Equipment and 

software that were donated or provided at a 

reduced price helped to relieve some of the 

financial burden on the projects. For example, 

Marshall University donated a server to the 

Advantage Valley project, which was used to host 

a new web site and connect local, smaller 

communities in the hopes of creating a larger 

sense of a common region. The university also 

donated the labor of a web designer. At Jefferson 

Community College, software was donated by

local businesses in return for the community

college’s professional endorsement. 

In addition to donated equipment, at least one 

other case study site was able to take advantage 

of secondhand equipment. In the Medical and 

Government Internet Coalition Network 

(MAGICnet) project, in Athens, Ohio, a local ISP 

was dumping external modems from their modem

pool, and COM and ILGARD bought them for a 

reduced price. They were also able to take 

advantage of surplus equipment made available 

through Ohio University, which was an 

unforeseen advantage to the project. 

PROJECT TRAINING 

In order to use equipment in an effective and 

productive manner, users must have the requisite 

knowledge and skills. Therefore, training is a 

critical part of most telecommunications projects. 

The telephone survey revealed that 59 of the 70 

projects (84 percent) provided onsite education 

and training activities, and 71 percent, more 

specifically, provided training in the use of 

telecommunications technologies (see figure 3-1). 

The case studies provided more indepth 

information on training than the telephone survey. 

Almost all of the case study sites used a portion 

of their grants to fund some sort of training 

activity. For some projects, training constituted a 

large portion of what they set out to do; for 

others, it was a smaller activity supplementing 

other telecommunications activities. Training 

activities also varied in substance and scope, as 

well as by recipients and types of providers. 

While some projects offered free training 

activities, others required participants to pay a 

nominal fee to attend sessions. A few sites 

33 
Exhibit 3-7. Telecommunications equipment 

purchased by case study sites, 

by projects’ primary focus

Project name Equipment purchased 

Access to Information Infrastructure 

Big Sandy

Telecommunications Center

(Pikeville, KY) 

Computers, monitors, laptops,

scanner, printers, V-Tel 

technology, videoconferencing 

equipment, audio equipment with 

DVD, VCR, CD, cassette, 

AM/FM, CATV 

Golden Triangle 

Telecommunications Network 

System (Starkville, MS) 

Teleconferencing units, cameras, 

microphones, satellite, laptop, T1 

and 64 K lines, projector, server,

routers, firewall 

Medical and Government 

Internet Coalition Network 

(MAGICnet) (Athens, OH) 

Computers, modems, monitors,

printers, 

SEDA-COG Info-Structure 

Technology Assistance 

Center (Lewisburg, PA)

Computers, printers, software

Southern Tier Central 

Telecommunications 

Initiative (Painted Post, NY) 

Computer, teleconferencing 

equipment, LCD projector, ISDN 

line, document camera 

Sunday Creek 

Associates/ARC Managing 

Information with Rural 

America (Shawnee, OH) 

Computers, copiers, printers

Tompkins County

Collaborative 

Communications (Ithaca, NY) 

Computers, servers, memory, 

scanners, drives, printers,

modems, networking equipment,

software packages, LCD projector 

Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Alleghany High School Cyber

Campus (Sparta, NC) 

Computers, videoconferencing 

equipment, printer, scanner,

server, video production 

equipment, software 

Grant Career Center 

Conference/Computer Center 

(Bethel, OH) 

Computers, scanner, printers, TV

monitor, speakers, video cameras, 

amplifiers, color TV, 

microphones, VCR, antennas 

Jackson County Distance 

Learning (Scottsboro, AL)

Monitors, cameras, projectors, 

microphones, speakers, cables 

Jefferson Community College 

Computer Labs (Steubenville, 

OH) 

Computers, monitors, software,

plotter, scanner

RESA Regional 

Telecommunication Special 

Initiative (Cumberland, MD) 

Computers, printers, server,

software 

E-Commerce Readiness/Tech Sector Employment 

Advantage Valley

(Huntington, WV)

None 

SC-Upstate-Info (SCUI) 

(Greenville, SC) 

Server, software 

PA SourceNet (Lewisburg,

PA) 

Computers, server 

Technology 2020 (Oak 

Ridge, TN)

None 

admitted that they charged the fee primarily so 

participants would take the courses more 

seriously; others had a genuine interest in 

defraying some of the administrative costs 

involved. The duration of training sessions 

ranged from several hours to an entire week. In 

addition to the training that came about as part of 

the grants, projects were able to carry out 

subsequent training activities thanks to space or 

equipment acquired through ARC grants. 

Topics Covered 

The majority of case study sites provided training 

sessions that were designed to familiarize 

beginners with computers, e-mail, or the Internet. 

This was a very important step at a time when 

many organizations and individuals were just 

beginning to have more regular access to some of 

the newer technologies. Basic computer training 

included orientation and familiarization with 

rudimentary functions in e-mail and operating 

systems. Internet training involved fundamental 

browsing and searching techniques as well as 

more specific demonstrations such as the 

opportunities and benefits that the Internet can 

provide in education and the classroom. One 

project also provided a session in how to apply

for grants through the Internet.

Half of the sites visited trained people in the 

general usage of programs such as Microsoft 

Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, and Access. 

The training focused on the use of a computer 

application, but did not usually integrate the 

application into the daily work routine. Only a 

few projects chose to tailor training to focus on 

the needs of a particular group of users. For 

example, the MAGICnet project provided 

separate training sessions for physicians and 

government officials that focused on issues 

particular to their interests. Physicians were 

taught where to access credible medical 

information and how they could use interlibrary

loans to get books and articles, and were given 

instruction on Medical Informatics, computer 

applications in medical care. Similarly, the 

Institute for Local Government Administration 

34 
and Rural Development (ILGARD) taught 

government officials where to access information 

that may be useful to them, such as federal and 

state grant opportunities. 

Other computer training topics included file 

management and introduction to applications 

systems. More advanced web training such as 

HTML programming, web page design, and web 

page maintenance were offered in five projects. 

Some projects also held more specific training, 

including job development and job skills training, 

asset mapping, strategic planning, budgeting, 

management, and team building. 

Training Providers 

For some case study sites, the grant recipient 

agency provided training in house. In other cases, 

project staff worked with contractors to conduct 

training sessions. Several projects relied on local 

community colleges or universities that already

had adequate facilities to conduct training. They

also found that institutions of higher learning had 

students who were willing to provide services for 

a reasonable cost or for free if they could receive 

course credits for internships. 

Training Recipients 

Three-fourths of the case study sites visited 

offered training courses to local government or 

business staff, including libraries, human service 

agencies, and educators in the community. Some

offered training to their own project staff. Three 

projects trained adults and other students from the 

community in job skills, including technology

and computer skills. In some cases, professional 

development courses were offered for teachers or 

other professionals in training centers. Some

examples follow: 

• 

• 

• 

Jefferson Community College Computer Labs 

project. Although the primary purpose of 

both computer labs was to enhance the 

school’s curriculum, the labs have been made 

available to local companies and their 

employees for training in the use of 

computers. Local employees and citizens 

who have little or no computer skills can 

enroll in the Step Up program to learn more 

about e-mail, Internet, and hardware 

capabilities of the personal computer. The 

program is designed to train those persons 

who are not necessarily college-bound, yet 

are interested in enhancing their career or 

marketable skills. Many of the people 

involved in Step Up go on to enroll at the 

college to pursue associate’s degrees. In 

addition to the Step Up program, faculty and 

administration cooperate with outside 

businesses to provide training and guidance. 

Also, faculty themselves are provided with 

training in the uses of software and/or 

hardware as the annual budget allows. 

(Steubenville, Ohio) 

South Carolina Upstate Information 

Telecommunications project. The training 

was designed for staff at libraries, 

government, and business partner sites. Their 

webmaster provided the training and 

developed handbooks on web page design 

and web site architecture for people who 

attended the training sessions. (Greenville, 

South Carolina) 

Golden Triangle Planning and Development 

District. Training was not provided to 

individual counties. Rather, training was 

provided in a given software package to 

county government staff across the seven 

counties. In an effort to publicize classes, 

notices were mailed out prior to each session, 

and it was then up to each county supervisor 

to determine who among their staff should 

attend. Training was generally provided to 

10 individuals at a time. This was made 

possible through another ARC grant that 

enabled the purchase of 10 laptop computers. 

Approximately 240 county employees 

received training through an ARC grant. 

(Starkville, Mississippi) 

35 
Training Facilities 

Computer training courses were often held in 

computer labs that were created as part of the 

grant, or in preexisting labs of other entities, such 

as local community colleges. Other locations 

included conference rooms or classrooms where 

laptop computers could be set up. There seemed 

to be a shift in the style of computer training over 

recent years. In 1994, early in the life of the ARC 

telecommunications grants, many people had not 

been exposed to state-of-the-art training facilities. 

Some agencies would have a presenter on a large 

screen computer at the front of a room, and 

everyone was expected to look over his/her 

shoulder. Other training situations required the 

sharing of equipment or were limited to one-onone training. However, by 2000, training 

sessions had evolved to the point where every

person had his or her own equipment with which 

to work and gain hands-on experience. Many

projects purchased furniture such as computer 

tables and other electronics including computers, 

LCD projectors, or teleconferencing equipment 

which further facilitated training activities. 

Materials Developed 

Several sites developed their own materials, 

including overhead slides, handouts, training 

manuals, and evaluation forms on which to 

provide feedback. Some agencies were able to use 

feedback from the evaluation forms to make 

improvements to the training courses, even during 

the life of the grant. Other materials developed 

included training handout packets with practice 

exercises and comprehensive web page 

architecture handbooks. Sometimes materials 

were distributed as a way for those being trained 

to be able to share what they learned in training 

with others in their organizations. One of the 

sites visited noted that the train-the-trainer 

approach worked better in some agencies than in 

others. It was noted that some agencies had staff 

members who were trained and returned to share 

their newly acquired knowledge with others, 

while other agencies had problems in losing 

knowledge and skills as a result of losing training 

staff. 

Best Training Practices 

End users must possess the requisite knowledge if 

they are to take full and appropriate advantage of 

telecommunications technologies. As such, 

successful projects emphasized the importance of 

providing individuals with adequate access to 

training in how to operate new hardware and 

software. Case study findings suggest that 

effective training involves sessions tailored to the 

characteristics, skills, and needs of specific end 

users. Further, projects should reinforce their 

technology training by (1) integrating learning 

into real-life contexts (e.g., in the workplace), (2) 

making written materials available, and (3) 

pointing out or facilitating future training 

possibilities. Several of the end users we 

interviewed indicated that single training sessions 

were ineffective. As such, they recommended 

that whenever possible, follow-up training should 

be offered on more advanced topics. 

PROJECT PLANNING

The case studies provide evidence that careful 

project planning is critical to project success. 

About half of the 16 projects visited attempted to 

involve end users and other community

stakeholders in the planning and development of 

the project through the form of a needs 

assessment. While the nature of these 

assessments varied somewhat, in most cases 

project staff inquired about the needs of their 

potential end users and beneficiaries through the 

use of surveys or, in a few instances, focus groups 

and interviews. 

For example, the Human Services Coalition of 

Tompkins County, New York, routinely conducts 

surveys of its agencies to assess their needs in 

such areas as training, technology, and space. 

HSC, which serves as the human service planning 

body for the county and coordinates the overall 

planning of human services programs and 

36 
activities, sent a survey to all of its agencies to 

assess their needs and their interest in 

participating in the ARC grant. This resulted in 

project staff obtaining worthwhile information 

(e.g., that a considerable number of agencies did 

not have e-mail or web sites), which ultimately

became very useful in the planning and 

development stages of the project. 

Another project that assessed the need for 

telecommunications technology was the SCUpstate-Info project. Its staff discovered that a 

need for a central community information source 

existed through a survey of, as well as focus 

groups with, reference librarians, economic 

developers, and local government officials. Both 

vehicles inquired about what types of information 

these groups would like to see about the upstate 

region of the state and other relevant issues. 

Best Planning Practices 

Attention to planning results in projects that 

remain focused on addressing a tangible goal. 

Several case study respondents indicated that 

their front-end assessments of end users’ needs 

resulted in the development of project activities 

that were appropriately utilized by the intended 

range of end users. These assessments also 

served to systematically expose community

members and potential stakeholders/partners to a 

project’s proposed aims and activities, thereby

increasing community involvement and support. 

The use of a needs assessment also helped some

projects avoid purchasing equipment simply

because funds were available or because 

“everyone else already had it.” 

Case study respondents recommended that future 

projects formally assess their infrastructure and 

staff expertise before purchasing and installing 

equipment. For example, projects recommended 

that feasibility studies be used to: 

• Evaluate the existing infrastructure and 

identify any changes that should be made to 

facilities (in advance of a purchase) to 

accommodate new equipment; 

• Consider how long projects expect their 

equipment to last (or stay current); 

• Anticipate equipment obsolescence when 

developing long-term telecommunications 

budgets; 

• Assess whether existing staff (or those 

appointed by them) possess the technical 

expertise required to install and operate the 

equipment; and 

• Review potential vendors’ history and 

references to see if any have a history of 

problems, e.g., delays acquiring equipment. 

PROJECT PROMOTION 

Another critical aspect of project success is the 

promotion of project activities. The case studies 

revealed that most projects marketed their 

activities/services directly to potential end users 

and other beneficiaries through a variety of 

approaches. The approach (or approaches) 

adopted by a particular project usually depended 

largely on the nature of that project. Projects that 

offered services to the wider community tended to 

engage in different and multiple marketing 

activities, while projects that were more narrowly

focused used fewer, more direct methods of 

increasing awareness. 

For example, the Jackson County Distance 

Learning project offered multiple activities and 

services to the entire community via 

videoconferencing, and engaged in a wide range 

of approaches with respect to increasing 

community awareness. Future activities are 

posted on the web site of the 21st Century

Council, the nonprofit corporation that operates 

the project, and the Council regularly posts 

information about upcoming activities in the two 

local newspapers. Its members frequently appear 

on local television stations during local news 

programs, and an e-mail list serve and fax list are 

also utilized, each consisting of hundreds of 

different businesses, and community and 

government agencies. 

37 
The SCUI project and the Alleghany High School 

Cyber Campus carried out similar efforts. SCUI 

relied on its web site for disseminating 

information about the project, and included its 

address on every publication, logo, map, and 

piece of letterhead it distributed. The Alleghany

High School Cyber Campus sought to expand 

educational opportunities to students and 

community members in rural and underserved 

areas, and its outreach efforts consisted of 

advertisements through flyers, radio stations, the 

campus’s cable TV channel, and newspapers. 

Students also received letters through the mail 

each year explaining what types of opportunities 

were available through the cyber campus. 

Projects that focused more on particular groups of 

users took very different approaches. For 

example, the Info-Structure Technology

Assistance Center was aimed at strengthening the 

local governments’ information structure by

developing and maintaining regional coordination 

of technology and replacing existing manual 

equipment and/or obsolete systems. While the 

overall community could be considered 

beneficiaries of the project, its primary end users 

were government personnel. Project staff 

contacted government personnel directly and 

inquired about the types of assistance they needed 

to perform their duties more effectively or 

efficiently. 

Similarly, the Golden Triangle Planning and 

Development District sought to connect county

governments and agencies, as well as to facilitate 

communication among and within them. This 

project routinely brought in staff from each 

participating county to demonstrate specific 

computer and Internet applications and to show 

off videoconferencing equipment in the hopes of 

attracting more users. 

Some projects encountered difficulties—in the 

form of resistance—when marketing their 

activities or services to potential users. For 

example, when the Info-Structure Technology

Assistance Center contacted agencies, many

government personnel did not feel the need for 

advanced telecommunications equipment. 

Rather, they believed their existing equipment 

was sufficient. Project staff, therefore, had to 

take a more aggressive approach by presenting 

arguments to personnel that the technology would 

make their lives easier and/or that the investment 

in training would be worth their time in the long 

run. 

A few projects did not take into account the 

amount of marketing that would be needed to 

ensure that potential beneficiaries of the activities 

or services being offered were aware of them. 

Several projects relied mostly on the element of 

word of mouth, and some others did not believe 

that marketing was at all necessary. With respect 

to the former, at the Technology 2020 project, the 

company was involved in almost all technologyrelated activities in the local communities, thus 

making it already widely known as well as easier 

to provide information. Moreover, the staff at the 

Jackson County Distance Learning project 

believed that since Scottsboro was such a “tightly

knit community,” the element of word of mouth 

was especially effective. One indication of this 

closeness is that the Director of the 21st Century

Council, which operates the project, is the leading 

family physician and has regular contact with 

virtually every segment of the community and 

thus is aware of the community’s concerns. 

Some projects did not feel marketing was 

necessary, either because of an existing demand 

for services or some other unique circumstance. 

For example, both the Grant Career Center and 

RESA indicated that their most significant 

challenge was not increasing demand, but 

meeting that which already existed. Further, the 

Board of Directors of the Kentucky Science and 

Technology Corporation (KSTC), which was 

responsible for the implementation of the Big 

Sandy Telecommunications Center, was 

composed of representatives of nearly all sectors 

that the project was designed to serve, including 

business, education, health care, and government. 

This greatly facilitated the dissemination of 

information and awareness of the project among 

38 
the community at large, making formal marketing 

efforts somewhat superfluous. 

Best Promotion Practices 

Successful telecommunications projects are able 

to make their services visible and attractive to as 

many potential end users as possible. Even the 

best-designed and well-implemented project will 

fall short if services are underutilized because of a 

lack of promotion. While the marketing approach 

employed depends on the nature and scope of the 

specific project, successful ARC 

telecommunications projects tend to make use of 

multiple concurrent forums to promote their 

services—including web sites, newspapers and 

magazines, local television stations or cable 

access stations, radio, newsletters, flyers, direct 

calls, demonstrations, and billboards. 

SUMMARY

Projects employed a wide range of activities as 

part of their implementation approach, and as a 

result, ARC-funded projects were able to address 

the varied needs of the communities they were 

serving. The case studies revealed that training 

for project participants, project planning, and the 

promotion of project activities were often critical 

elements to successful project implementation. 

39 
 Project Accomplishments and Impact IV.

It is impossible for a study of this size and scope 

to quantify the full extent to which ARC projects 

succeeded in infusing telecommunications 

technologies into the working and private lives of 

people in Appalachian communities. However, 

survey findings and site visit interviews suggest 

that these projects left a significant imprint, and 

in many cases set into motion further changes of 

import to the ways in which business, 

governance, and education are carried out. This 

chapter describes the types of accomplishments 

that projects identified during the telephone 

survey and site visit interviews. 

ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS

Survey respondents were asked to indicate the 

extent to which they were successful in meeting 

the goals they set for themselves (see chapter 2).11 

The two most commonly cited goals were 

improving skills training and educational 

opportunities and enhancing economic 

development (see table 2-3). Of the 61 projects 

that aimed to improve skills training and 

educational opportunities, 42 (69 percent) 

indicated that their success was the same as 

expected, 14 (23 percent) said it was more than 

expected, and 5 (8 percent) reported that it was 

less than expected (table 4-1). Of the 52 projects 

that aimed to enhance economic development, 37 

(71 percent) reported their success to be the same 

as expected, 7 (14 percent) said it was more than 

expected, and 8 (15 percent) indicated that it was 

less than expected. 

40 

 

11Response to this measure depended on individual respondents’

varying definitions and expectations of success, and allowed them

to assess their own level of achievement.

The most success was found among projects that 

aimed to address information coordination, 

enhance employment opportunities, and improve 

consumers’ access to quality health care. Of the 

46 respondents who reported the goal of 

enhancing coordination of community-wide 

information and communication service, 17 (37 

percent) said that their success was more than 

they expected. Similarly, of the 35 respondents 

who said their project aimed to enhance 

employment opportunities, 11 (31 percent) 

indicated greater success than expected, and of 

the 17 respondents who said their project aimed 

to improve consumers’ access to quality health 

care, 6 (35 percent) reported more success than 

expected. The goal with the least success in 

implementation was improving the delivery of 

and access to social services; 5 (23 percent) of the 

22 projects that cited this as a goal indicated that 

they were less successful than expected in 

meeting it. 

IMPACT OF THE ARC GRANTS

Results of the telephone survey reveal that many

of the 70 telecommunications projects would 

never have existed, or would have been seriously

impaired, without ARC support. Forty-four of 

the 70 survey respondents (63 percent) indicated 

that their project would never have been 

implemented without ARC funding, and 24 (34 

percent) reported that their project would have 

been only partially implemented had they not 

received funding through ARC (figure 4-1). Only

2 (3
Table 4-1 

Extent of achievement of goals 

Number and percent indicating extent of success 

Goal Less than expected Same as expected More than expected 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Improve skills training and education opportunities (n=61).... 5 8 42 69 14 23

Enhance economic development (n=52).................................. 8 15 37 71 7 14

Enhance community development (n=46) ............................... 7 15 33 71 6 13

Enhance long-term telecommunications needs (n=46)............ 5 11 31 67 10 22

Enhance coordination of community-wide information and 

communication services (n=46) ........................................... 4 9 25 54 17 37

Improve delivery of and access to government services 

(n=42) ................................................................................... 4 10 30 71 8 19

Enhance employment opportunities (n=35)............................. 6 17 18 51 11 31

Improve delivery of and access to social services (n=22) ....... 5 23 12 55 5 23

Improve consumers’ access to quality health care (n= 17)...... 2 12 9 53 6 35

Something else (n=8)................................................................ 0 0 4 50 4 50

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. N’s refer here to the number of respondents indicating their project addressed a given 

goal.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees. 

percent) respondents said that their project would 

have been fully implemented without ARC 

funding.12 

Among the 26 projects that would have been 

partially implemented without the ARC funding, 

12 (47 percent) said they would have offered 

significantly fewer services, 17 (65 percent) said 

they would have reached significantly fewer 

people, and 19 (73 percent) reported that the 

project schedule would have been substantially

delayed (figure 4-2). 

Respondents’ Perceptions of Projects’ Most 

Important Outcome 

The survey provided respondents with the 

opportunity to describe the most important 

outcome that resulted from their ARC grant. 

Responses varied widely from narrow statements 

about activities, such as “Internet access for 

students and teachers,” to broader statements 

about the impact of those activities, such as 

 

12Projects that would have been fully implemented in the absence of

ARC funds were excluded from the case study sample to assure

that Westat was visiting those projects that most benefited from

ARC funding.

Figure 4-1 

Percent of projects reporting the most likely 

outcome if the project had not received ARC 

funding (n=70) 

3%

(n=2)

34%

(n=24)

63%

(n=44)

Fully implemented

Partially implemented

Never implemented

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

“meeting the shortage of trained technicians in 

our service area” and “access to legal documents 

in eight counties without having to examine paper 

records.” Some respondents cited impressive but 

vague outcomes, such as “the community was 

brought into the 21st century.” 

Figure 4-2 

41 
Among projects that would have been partially 

implemented without ARC funding (n=26), the 

percent reporting various effects 

47%

(n=12)

38%

(n=10)

15%

(n=4) Still be able to offer the

full range of services

Offer slightly fewer

services

Offer significantly

fewer services

65%

(n=17))

27%

(n=7)

8%

(n=2) Reached an equivalent

number of people

Reached slightly fewer

people

Reached significantly

fewer people

73%

(n=19)

23%

(n=6)

4%

(n=1) Implemented on the

same schedule

Delayed slightly

Substantially delayed

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

Responses generally fell into eight major 

categories: (1) improvement in skills, (2) 

expanded educational opportunities, (3) improved 

access to information and services, (4) improved 

coordination and communication across 

jurisdiction and sectors, (5) upgraded and 

improved technologies, (6) awareness of 

importance of telecommunications technologies, 

(7) leveraging of other funding or opportunities, 

and (8) reduced sense of isolation. Exhibit 4-1 (at 

the end of this chapter) provides examples of 

statements respondents made about their ARC 

grant’s most important outcome. 

Number of Beneficiaries 

Consistent with the breadth of 

telecommunications projects that ARC has 

funded, the number of people who benefited 

directly (i.e., those with direct access to project 

resources or equipment) from each project varied 

greatly. Responses ranged from 6 people to 

nearly 10,000 people as direct beneficiaries from

their projects (data not shown in tables), with a 

mean of 2,180 and a median of 500. A number of 

projects had difficulty estimating the number of 

beneficiaries, often due more to the difficulty of 

counting people in certain categories (e.g., web 

users) than to inadequate data collection 

measures. 

Impact on Beneficiaries 

The case study sites affirmed that ARC-funded 

telecommunications projects generally achieved 

their goals and had a substantial impact in many

communities. Case study findings suggest that 

increased access to telecommunications 

technologies resulted in a wide range of tangible 

and intangible impacts. These include the 

creation of new partnerships in communities, the 

pooling of resources, questioning of outdated 

ways of doing things, and speculation about 

potential innovative approaches for improving 

conditions in a variety of public and private 

settings. Respondents at most sites made clear 

that project staff, beneficiaries, and community

members were exposed to technologies that 

served as a catalyst for provoking consideration 

of how existing practices might be advanced. It is 

this new paradigm of shared knowledge and 

awareness that may ultimately help propel 

communities in Appalachia toward a lifting of the 

digital divide. 

ARC telecommunications grants serve not only

the purpose of educating communities, but also 

help to prove to skeptics the utility and 

importance of improved telecommunications 

technologies. In many of the case studies, it was 

found that projects were able to dispel doubt and 

42 
make believers of key decisionmakers, paving the 

way for future funding and further partnerships. 

Also, many of these case study projects would not 

have gotten off of the ground were it not for an 

ARC grant. In this sense, many ARC grants serve 

as a springboard for future funding and 

expansion. 

It is also important to note that in many cases, the 

ARC grant period was primarily used to lay the 

foundation for longer term telecommunications 

advances. As such, the benefits that sites reported 

might not take into account other substantive 

gains that will accrue over time. Nonetheless, 

qualitative findings from the case study sites 

highlight several ways in which projects 

improved the quality of life in participating 

communities. The projects imported equipment 

and infrastructure into communities that had been 

adversely affected by the digital divide. This 

infusion of new telecommunications technology

improved the flow of information within and 

across businesses, educational institutions, and 

governing offices. It also benefited individuals 

and organizations in many specific ways, such as 

making classes available through distance 

learning, promoting education through access to 

the Internet and specialized software, supporting 

workforce training, and increasing productivity in 

the workplace. 

To illustrate some of the impacts described above, 

three detailed examples from the case studies

follow. 

Jackson County Distance Learning. The

Jackson County Distance Learning project had a 

wide range of impacts. Respondents indicated 

that, as a result of the ARC grant, graduate and 

undergraduate students can now pursue degrees 

via distance education from major universities, 

including the University of Alabama and Auburn 

University, without commuting the long distances 

back and forth from Scottsboro. Also, 

professional development workshops can be 

offered to a greater number of teachers. The 

Director of Special Education for Scottsboro City

Schools recently led teachers through a 

professional development seminar that permitted 

all the teachers to participate from their respective 

schools. This allowed the teachers to remain in 

their everyday setting and not devote extra time 

and/or expenses to traveling to one central 

location. 

Further, large numbers of community members 

can participate in health seminars that originate 

from the University of Alabama Medical Center 

or other major hospitals and health care centers. 

Topics of these seminars are designed to address 

the immediate needs of Scottsboro residents and, 

as a result, have included topics such as diabetes, 

nutrition, and obesity. 

Teachers can now introduce new subject areas 

and curriculum resources to students. Students 

are participating in National Geographic 

programs, as well as other math/science 

programs, in which they would not otherwise be 

able to participate. Students in Scottsboro are 

also using the distance learning equipment to 

participate in classes that are not available in the 

immediate area but are offered in other parts of 

the state. For example, if one student wants to 

take calculus, it is likely that either there is no 

teacher qualified to teach that subject or there is 

not sufficient demand within the school to offer 

such a course. Through the use of the distance 

learning equipment, however, that student can 

complete such a course and, in some cases, even 

receive college credit for it. 

In addition, government representatives are 

communicating with their constituents more 

easily using the distance learning equipment. 

Scottsboro is over 200 miles away from the state 

capital of Montgomery, thus making it difficult 

for Scottsboro residents to communicate with 

their state representatives and other government 

officials. However, the first electronic town 

meeting was offered, which allowed residents to 

ask questions, and/or express their concerns to 

their representatives in Montgomery.

Alleghany High School Cyber Campus. The

Alleghany High School Cyber Campus has had a 

43 
tremendous impact on education in Sparta, North 

Carolina, not just for the students, but for teachers 

and the broader community as well. 

The cyber campus has given rise to new learning 

opportunities for Alleghany High School 

students, and the Curriculum Director has 

described it as “one of the best things we’ve done 

for [them].” There was a time when the 

curriculum did not even offer AP classes, but now 

students can enroll in college courses, earning 

college credits while they are still in high school, 

and they can participate in enrichment lessons 

taught through the North Carolina School of 

Science and Math. Students’ aspirations have 

grown, and staff members at the cyber campus 

have observed more students continuing on to 2- 

and 4-year colleges. One of their graduates who 

became interested in computers through the 

internship program has begun studying graphic 

design at a college in Vermont. 

Students are learning valuable computer skills in 

software programs like Excel, Publisher, 

PowerPoint, PhotoShop, and Corel Draw. 

Among them is a visually impaired student who 

was a junior at the time of our site visit. Not only

has she learned how to use a computer, but the 

confidence she has gained through her 

participation in the cyber campus’s internship 

program was credited as playing an important role 

in her plans to apprentice at Sparta’s Chamber of 

Commerce during the summer break. 

Teachers have benefited from the cyber campus, 

as well. They have the opportunity to participate 

in professional development courses, receive 

certification credits, collaborate with other 

teachers in their discipline, and earn their 

master’s degrees, all through the cyber campus. 

One teacher is earning her doctorate from a 

university 60 miles away and will be completing 

some of her coursework through the cyber 

campus. Teachers have also been able to 

incorporate technology into their lesson plans, 

which has added another dimension to their 

teaching and has emboldened them through the 

positive reaction they receive from their students. 

One teacher that was interviewed described a 

conversation with friends of his in New York 

about the latest innovations in technology. He 

laughed when he recounted how his friends told 

him, “You’re in the mountains of North Carolina, 

I’m sure you haven’t seen this,” only to be 

amazed by the highly sophisticated technology

available to him through the cyber campus. 

The reach of the cyber campus extends beyond 

the students and teachers at Alleghany High 

School to touch members of the community as 

well. Through the community lab, they have 

access to computers, e-mail, the Internet, and 

courses on basic computer skills that they did not 

have before the cyber campus was built. One of 

the interns who teaches classes at the Community

Technology Learning Center noted that many of 

the people who use the computer lab are elderly.

He poignantly described the rewarding moment 

when they realize that they are not too old to 

learn.

Jefferson Community College Computer Labs. 

One final example is that of Jefferson Community

College, where site visitors clearly saw that the 

ARC-funded project had wide-ranging effects on 

students, faculty, and administrators. In general, 

students could be trained on the latest equipment 

and software and could acquire the skills and 

knowledge requisite for employment in technical 

fields. Specifically, students were able to take 

programming courses that would not have 

otherwise been available. In addition, students 

were exposed to a variety of operating systems 

(Novell, Unix, NT). In the CAD lab, students 

could train on the most up-to-date software on 

faster machines, saving instruction time and 

increasing the pace of learning. According to the 

current Dean of Information and Engineering 

Technologies, the new equipment and software 

“drastically changed students’ experiences,” and 

“opened opportuni-ties to them, like minor league 

to major league.” 

Another important benefit for students, as a result 

of the ARC grant, was the ability to transfer 

computer science credits to 4-year institutions. 

44 
The transfer program facilitated continuing 

education by providing for a smoother and less 

expensive transition from Jefferson Community

College to other schools. Anecdotal evidence 

suggests that students were successful in finding 

employment after graduating (for those who did 

not transfer to a 4-year school). The AutoCAD 

instructor said that most of his students “get jobs 

before getting out of school,” many after having 

done internships. According to this teacher, 95 

percent of graduates find work in-field or else go 

on to 4-year colleges. 

Faculty benefited from the equipment in several 

ways. First, “it showcased for them what 

technology could do” (Dean of Information and 

Engineering Technologies). Teachers exposed to 

the two labs were made aware of the ample 

pedagogical possibilities of technology. For 

those teachers with courses based in one of the 

labs, their instruction was enhanced, as was their 

sense of pride, in that they were teaching with the 

most sophisticated and current tools available in 

their fields. According to the AutoCAD 

instructor, “we were the envy of the building.” 

Faculty also benefited by participating in staff 

training/professional development within the labs 

(e.g., learning how to use an electronic 

gradebook). The AutoCAD instructor said that 

having the latest equipment “pushed us to keep 

up” by attending workshops and conferences 

(e.g., the AutoDesk University program, and 

North American AutoCAD user groups 

seminars). Parents were also indirectly affected 

by the computer science transfer program (a byproduct of the ARC grant), which allowed them

to save money on tuition. This is especially the 

case for parents of students who could attend 

Jefferson Community College for free as a result 

of the Horizon grant. 

According to the Vice-President of Academic 

Affairs, “Once you offer advanced programming 

courses, it pushes the institution to another level 

of offering services.” The Dean of Information 

and Engineering Technologies said that the 

project made possible the computer science 

transfer program and helped Jefferson 

Community College to take the necessary steps to 

offering technology-related courses. Perhaps 

most importantly, the ARC grant proved to be a 

springboard for other technology-related grants 

won by the college in the following years. Also, 

enrollment increased at Jefferson Community

College as a result of the equipment purchased 

with ARC funds (according to several 

respondents). 

Finally, the ARC grant “made a believer out of 

key decision-makers” at the college, and made it 

easier for the school to attract new students. 

Another important effect of the grant on the 

college was its educational value. The VicePresident of Academic Affairs noted that the 

project “educated the college as a whole as to 

what technology can do for us.” This increased 

awareness on the part of the college has already

had a profound influence on its organization, 

curriculum, and mode of operation. Changes in 

the direction of technology-based instruction are 

already in evidence throughout the college. The 

technology director at Jefferson Community

College said that the equipment purchased with 

ARC funds “educated us to what was out there 

that students could do.” 

Benefiting Agencies 

For some projects, the beneficiaries were 

particular agencies and their staff. For instance, 

the Tompkins County Collaborative Communications project facilitated communication among 

participating agencies. The agencies are now able 

to send and receive information regarding funding 

sources via e-mail, which has allowed for more 

effective reports and timely applications. 

Agencies can help clients more promptly as 

increased communication speeds up the process 

of referrals, and they now are able to network 

with other agencies from broader coalitions. 

Further, agencies have much better access to 

centralized forms and databases through their 

connections to the Internet. For example, all staff 

at Neighborhood Legal Services now have access 

to the Internet and databases in Albany and 

45 
Washington, DC. As a result, research happens 

faster—which leaves more time for clients. 

Other projects directly benefited neither 

individuals nor agencies, but rather entire regions. 

For example, the Advantage Valley project was 

not created to serve individuals or specific 

agencies or organizations. Rather, the beneficiary

of this project was the region as a whole. In the 

end, the impact of ARC-funded 

telecommunications projects should be assessed 

not just in terms of the people or organizations 

that benefited from services, but also the extent to 

which telecommunications technology has been 

infused into communities, as well as the ability to 

make effective use of it. 

Intangible Impacts 

Besides the tangible impacts of projects, it should 

be noted that some ARC-funded 

telecommunications projects also had intangible, 

but no less significant, impacts on communities. 

One finding of the case study projects was that 

projects had the effect of exposing project staff 

and others to the potential of telecommunications 

technologies. The educational value of these 

projects should not be underestimated, since it 

made apparent new possibilities and instigated 

thought on how these technologies could be 

applied in creative ways for the advancement of 

individuals and communities. 

A second intangible impact of the projects was 

the sense of enthusiasm and pride that they

generated. For example, at Jefferson Community

College, students expressed pride to be attending 

a school where the latest equipment and software 

was at their fingertips. Also, having the latest 

equipment gave them confidence that they could 

enter the job market well armed for success. 

Although it is hard to measure, it seems that the 

equipment (especially the AutoCAD software and 

machines) enhanced students’ enthusiasm for 

learning (according to students and teachers with 

whom we spoke). One teacher, speaking of the 

AutoCAD lab, told us “we can’t get the students 

out of there.” 

SUMMARY

The telecommunications projects funded by ARC 

between 1994 and 2000 left a significant 

impression on the communities in which they

were located. They increased access to 

telecommunications infrastructure, as well as 

knowledge about its applications. The infusion of 

telecommunications technology has also triggered 

important new connections within communities 

among institutions, agencies, businesses, and 

individuals. 

46 
Exhibit 4-1. Examples of respondents’ perceptions of the 

most important accomplishment to result from the ARC grant 

Improvement in skills: 

! Improved technical skills. 

! Meeting the shortage of trained technicians in our service area. 

! Helped students further their education and enhanced their opportunities in the marketplace. 

! Tremendous increase in math, science, and technology skills. 

Expanded educational opportunities: 

! Able to offer and deliver a whole new set of computer courses; as a result of grant can offer two new degrees. 

! Ability to use distance learning equipment to provide additional educational opportunities to the students. 

! Computer lab and conference room provided great educational and meeting areas for community employability skills 

training. 

! Enabled organization to provide hands-on, one-on-one training. 

! Opportunity for students to study a foreign language that they would not have had otherwise. 

! The ability to offer an expanded curriculum which normally we could not have been able to offer. 

! Extended postsecondary educational opportunities to rural Georgians. 

! The educational opportunities provided to the community and to the high school students; it enabled high school students to 

earn a high school degree if they chose and teachers could earn master’s degrees. 

Improved access to information and services: 

! Easier to access information and share resources. 

! Each of the participating institutions established dial-up capabilities that allow them to access audio-video links with any 

other institution or agency with similar capabilities. 

! Ability to access records between county courthouses via WAN. 

! Having an organized way of having valuable information to be made available, to access and send it out to people; an 

information and referral system for the 50+ population, caregivers, and other agencies providing services to this group. 

! Teachers were able to make contact with businesses and industry to see what skills and competencies were needed for 

employment after students graduated from high school. 

! Improved Internet access for the clients.

! Providing online access to thousands of Pennsylvania companies for self-enrollment, product and service searching, and 

file update capabilities. 

! Improved services for member government and community organizations. 

! Diagnosis of medical problems by nurse practitioners in field by one-way, still-image transmission to a back-up physician. 

Improved coordination and communication across jurisdiction and sectors:

! Local communities banding together for region-wide economic development; change in state laws allowing cross-county 

development. 

! Development of a telecommunications technology assessment for community development. 

! Pulling together of the community, i.e., education, manufacturing companies, business people, and individuals. 

! Communication among local, municipal, and county leaders with regard to telecommunications issues. 

! Improved interaction among individuals in the state who are involved and interested in advanced telecommunications, for 

example, regional and town meetings. 

! Facilitating new partnerships in the telecommunications field. 

! Significantly improved the potential for coordination of ARC-related activities between the New York State Department of 

State, the three Local Development Districts in the southern tier, and other state agencies. 

! People came in who had never before been involved; schools called for information; became a resource for other areas of 

the state; others contacted us for our expertise. 

! Networking between community teams and community support organizations. 

47 
Exhibit 4-1. Examples of respondents’ perceptions of the 

most important accomplishment to result from the ARC grant (continued) 

Upgraded and improved technologies: 

! Enhancement of distance learning and teleconferencing. 

! The advancement of a wireless network expanding now into Allegheny and Garrett Counties, development of a proposed 

second network to support economic development and provide repugnance to the first network, the upgrade and importance 

of the web presence. 

! Improved telehealth network. 

! Upgraded significantly several programs for students and industry (i.e., General Motors training). 

! Final step in getting all public libraries and colleges in upstate South Carolina wired to the Internet. 

! It allowed us to purchase and install a new server and provide more PCs to our students at a much earlier time. 

Awareness of importance of telecommunications technologies: 

! In target audience, the project raised awareness of telecommunications uses, provided recognition of the importance of 

Internet connectivity, and demonstration of coordinated negotiating and purchasing power. 

! Showed demand for telecommunications access in a business incubator setting. 

! The superintendent was on the task force and gained knowledge of how important it was to do whatever possible to acquire 

funding. 

! Enhanced awareness of telecommunication technologies in rural areas. 

! Continuing enhancement of community awareness of telecommunications capabilities. 

Leveraging of other funding or opportunities:

! Due to the equipment purchase of the GIS, we have been given additional contracts, utilizing the equipment and able to 

provide additional services to five ARC counties. 

! The establishment of the Diffusion Fund Network for which the Virginia phone company awarded us $2.35 million for 

infrastructure and equipment. 

! Feasibility engineering study which formed the basis of our implementation grant proposals; grant writing time led to other 

grants. 

Reduced sense of isolation, increased sense of opportunity: 

! Graham County is very isolated geographically and this project played an important part in reducing the sense of isolation. 

! Provided a world of opportunity where none existed before. 

! An awareness of the Internet and the opportunities for education and business within a small rural town—a window to the 

world.

48 
V. Measurement of Project Performance

Findings from the survey and case studies 

indicate that the ARC’s telecommunications 

projects were successful and provided a wide 

range of benefits to the communities in which 

they were located. However, case study findings 

also suggest that the majority of projects did not 

adequately document these successes. Further, 

many of the proposals that we reviewed did not 

delineate clear and measurable outputs and 

outcomes, thereby hindering the Commission’s 

ability to document more fully the range of 

benefits associated with its portfolio of 

telecommunications projects. 

This section focuses on the extent to which the 16 

case study sites identified realistic and tangible 

outputs and outcomes in their original proposals 

to the ARC. Special emphasis is placed on the 

quality of the outcome statements that projects 

identified in their original proposals to the 

ARC—and the extent to which site visitors found 

evidence that could be used to verify that these 

outcomes were, in fact, achieved. 

POLICY CONTEXT

Under the Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA), even a fully implemented project 

cannot be considered successful until it provides 

tangible evidence that it benefited the individuals 

and communities that it served. In the current 

environment of enhanced accountability, federal 

grant projects must be able to demonstrate that 

their activities led (or at least contributed) to 

tangible and measurable outcomes. A systematic 

and accurate assessment of project achievement 

requires a performance monitoring system that 

can be used to demonstrate not only that projects 

carried out their proposed activities, but also the 

extent to which those activities ultimately

benefited individuals and communities. For such 

a system to work effectively, all activities and 

related benefits must be clearly defined and 

measurable—or else the chain of evidence may be 

weakened. Further, projects should have realistic 

plans in place to obtain valid and reliable data 

that can be used to document progress toward 

their outcomes. 

There are two broad types of data that federal 

grant projects can collect and disseminate. 

Output data provide information on the type and 

level of services provided to participants. For 

example, a proposed output of one ARC 

telecommunications project was to “provide 

Internet access to at least 20 local governments 

and 20 medical providers.” Outcome data 

document the condition of or circumstance of 

program participants after a service has been 

provided. For example, one telecommunications 

project aimed to “increase sales among area 

businesses,” while another indicated that its 

efforts would “lead to increased job skills among 

area workers.” 

For some ARC-sponsored activities, such as 

providing skills training to unemployed workers, 

describing discernible outcomes is relatively easy

(e.g., a decrease in local unemployment rates). 

However, for many ARC-sponsored telecommunications activities, the identification of 

tangible and measurable outcomes can be difficult. 

This is because many of the activities commonly

supported by telecommunications projects (e.g., 

increasing access to computers and the Internet) can 

lead to a wide range of outcomes that are difficult to 

conceptualize (e.g., increased worker efficiency)—

and even harder to measure in a cost-effective 

manner (e.g., a reduction in the amount of time 

required to complete a task). For example, as 

shown in exhibit 5-1, a telecommunications project 

that provides computers, Internet access, and 

training might be able to easily document the 

number of staff receiving technology training (an 

49 
output). However, it would likely have more 

difficulty measuring the extent to which this 

training contributed to a wide range of short-term

outcomes—e.g., an increase in staff technology

skills, an increase in the quality and timeliness of 

services, an increase in the number of clients 

receiving services. The project would likely have 

even more difficulty assessing whether the training 

ultimately contributed to a decrease in local 

unemployment rates (a long-term outcome). While 

such outcomes can be difficult and costly to 

measure, their inclusion in a conceptual framework 

(such as the one proposed in exhibit 5-1) can 

increase the likelihood that a project’s focus will 

extend beyond the measurement of outputs. 

Prior to 1993, many federal agencies primarily

relied on output data to quantify the types of 

services they were providing. However, under 

GPRA, federal programs must also use outcome

data to demonstrate improvements that have 

occurred as a result of their services. In response to 

GPRA, several federal telecommunications grant 

programs have established application and reporting 

procedures that are designed to establish links 

between project goals, activities, outcomes, and 

measurable outcome indicators. For example, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce’s Technology

Opportunities Program has a program monitoring 

system that requires all projects to delineate specific 

and measurable outcomes. These outcomes, which 

must be approved by the TOP program at the outset 

of the project, are supposed to specify community

benefits that will occur as a result of a 

telecommunications activity. At the end of the 

project, grant recipients complete a final report that 

provides information and evidence on the extent to 

which each of these outcomes were met. 

Until the institution of GPRA in late 1990s, there 

were few ARC guidelines in place promoting the 

inclusion of outcomes in applications and final 

reports. In 1998, this situation changed when the 

Commission developed application guidelines that 

were oriented toward GPRA and designed to 

improve the quality and consistency of the 

proposals submitted to ARC. Under these new 

guidelines, applicants are required to describe the 

objectives of their proposed project, provide an 

explanation of how the effort pertains to one or 

more of the Commission’s five strategic goals, and 

offer a rationale for their proposed approach. They

must also describe the “output and outcome

benefits to be derived from the project—with 

particular emphasis on the extent to which the 

benefits to the area being served by the project will 

be realized on a continuing rather than a temporary

basis.”13 

The new guidelines also encourage applicants to 

provide numeric benchmarks that specify the 

number of individuals or organizations that will 

receive services and benefit from the ARC-funded 

activities. The use of numeric benchmarks 

provides the Commission and its projects with 

specific targets against which immediate and longterm progress can be measured. As such, the 

delineation of numeric benchmarks represents a 

critical cornerstone of ARC’s evolving performance 

monitoring strategy. It should be noted that 

because of this shift, the telecommunications 

projects included in this study were subject to 

different reporting requirements. For example, of 

the 16 case study projects discussed throughout this 

chapter, 6 were initiated before the new 1998 

application guidelines (and were therefore not 

required to quantify how their participants would 

benefit from their proposed activities), 7 were 

initiated at the time these guidelines were 

 

13ARC Project Application Workbook.

50 
Exhibit 5-1. Logic model for generic telecommunications project 

Appalachian RegionalCommission Funding Expertise

Number of agencies participating inthe project

Grant Recipient Funding Expertise Equipment Training MaterialsState Agencies andPartners Financial support Expertise Resources Participants Community access site

Conduct an assessment of existinginformation technology capabilitieswithin the communityProvide government agencies withnew hardware/software and improvedInternet accessEstablish an Internet access center forcommunity members (in local library)

Number of agency staff gaining access to computers/InternetNumber of agency staff receivingtechnology training

Inputs Activities Outputs Short-term outcomes 

Create web sites for local government agencies and community businesses Contextual Fact

ors

Lack of expertise in technology- related issues within the community

Lack of a regional telecommunicationsinfrastructure

Limited number of hardwareand software vendors within the community

Number of agencies and businesseswith web sites

Number of community membersgaining access to the Internet

Provide low-cost Internet access tocommunity businessesProvide education and training in the use of computers and the Internet Number of community members

attending technology training

Increase in technology skills of agencystaff

Increase in the quality and timeliness of servicesIncrease in the number of agency staffmaking effective use technologyIncrease in the number of web site hitsfrom outside the communityIncrease in the number of communitymembers making use of computersand the InternetIncrease in the number of clientsreferrals among participating agenciesIncrease in the number of clientsscreened for servicesIncrease in the number of clientsreceiving services

Competing priorities withinthe community (e.g., power, roads, water, wastewater)

Resistance to using computers and the Internet in the workplace and community

Number of technology courses offeredNumber of local businesses takingadvantage of low-cost Internet access

Increased use of e-commerceapplications by local businesses 

51
introduced, and 3 were initiated after the 

guidelines were in place. 

TYPES OF OUTCOMES AND 

OUTPUTS ANTICIPATED BY 

ARC TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

PROJECTS

In order to assess the outputs and outcomes 

anticipated by the ARC telecommunications 

projects, we conducted a systematic review of the 

proposals submitted by the 16 case study sites. 

(As part of this review, we also identified 

outcomes contained in the ARC memorandums 

that were prepared for these 16 projects.)14 The 

purpose of the review was to evaluate the content, 

clarity, and measurability of the original 

outcomes proposed by these 16 projects, as well 

as to assess the extent to which these projects 

achieved their anticipated outcomes.15 For the

purposes of the analysis, outcomes included 

statements that referred to benefits to individuals, 

organizations, or communities. Other statements 

that referred to the means to these ends were 

treated as outputs. 

Distribution of Outputs and Outcomes. 

Among the 16 case study projects, 73 outputs and 

outcomes were culled from proposals and ARC 

memorandums. Of these 73 statements, 36 (49.3 

percent) were classified as outcomes, and 37 

(50.7 percent) were classified as outputs (table 5-

1). All but 2 of the 16 applications delineated at 

least one outcome statement; the remaining two 

projects only described activities that would occur 

as a result of their efforts. 

 14Just over half (52.1 percent) of the outputs and outcomes included 

in this analysis were culled from the project benefits section of an 

ARC memorandum. The remaining 47.1 percent were pulled from

proposals. In addition, output statements that merely described an 

activity (e.g., "training will be provided") were generally not 

included in the analysis. However, output statements that included 

a numeric benchmark (e.g., "training will be provided to 200 

workers") were included—since they provided a specific goal 

against which future progress could be measured.

15Since the remaining 54 ARC telecommunications projects were not 

included in this analysis, it is not possible to conclude whether the 

findings in this section pertain to the entire study sample. 

Table 5-1 

Distribution of outputs and outcomes in the 

case study sites 

Number Percent

Outcomes............................ 36 49.3

Output................................. 37 50.7

Total ................................... 73 100.0

Fifteen (41.7 percent) of the 36 outcome

statements described how project activities would 

result in increased efficiency (table 5-2). As shown 

in exhibit 5-2, many of these statements reflected 

ways in which the use of technology would enable 

agencies to provide faster or more efficient 

services. In addition: 

Ten (27.8 percent) of the outcome statements 

described how project activities would result 

in increased knowledge or skills. Although 

these outcomes tended to be more specific 

(e.g., “The lab will be used to run educational 

software to help students pass the 9th grade 

proficiency tests”), they still lacked 

information about how projects would know 

whether their outcomes had been met. 

• 

• 

• 

Eight (22.2 percent) described an economic 

benefit that would occur as a result of the 

project. While some of these statements were 

specific (e.g., “the project will increase sales 

among area businesses”), others were vague or 

overly broad (e.g., “Improved opportunities 

for economic development”). 

The remaining 3 (8.3 percent) described how 

individuals would have increased access to 

information as a result of the project. 

Most of the outputs described the types of activities 

that would occur or types of individuals who would 

52 
Table 5-2 

Types and number of outputs and outcomes for the 16 case studies* 

Assessment of whether outcome was met 

Benchmarks Yes No Unable to 

ascertain Type of output/outcome Breakdown 

# % # % # % # %

Increased capacity (n=13) ................ 35.1 3 23.1 9 69.2 3 23.1 1 7.7

Increased access (n=10) ................... 27.0 6 60.0 4 40.0 4 40.0 2 20.0

Training (n=8) .................................. 21.6 5 62.5 3 37.5 2 25.0 3 37.5

Enhanced coordination (n=4)........... 10.8 0 0.0 4 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Develop web sites (n=2)................... 5.4 2 100.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 Outputs 

Subtotal (n=37) ............................... 100.0 16 43.2 21 56.8 10 27.0 6 16.2

Increased efficiency (n=15).............. 41.7 1 6.7 7 46.6 0 0.0 8 44.4

Increased knowledge/skills (n=10) 27.8 1 10.0 3 30.0 0 0.0 7 70.0

Economic/social impact (n=8) ......... 22.2 1 12.5 5 62.5 0 0.0 3 37.5

Increased access (n=3) ..................... 8.3 2 66.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100.0

Outcomes 

Subtotal (n=36) ............................... 100.0 5 13.9 15 41.7 0 0.0 21 58.3

Total (n=73)............................................................. 21 28.8 36 49.3 10 13.7 27 37.0

*Multiple outputs and outcomes were proposed for virtually every case study

receive services as a result of the ARC grant. For 

example, 13 (35.1 percent) of the 37 outputs 

described activities designed to increase the 

telecommunications capacity of individuals and 

institutions, while 10 (27.0 percent) described 

activities designed to increase access to technology

and 8 (21.6 percent) described training activities. 

As shown in exhibit 5-3, these statements generally

reflected what would happen (e.g., “Provide 

Internet access to at least 20 local governments and 

20 medical providers”). 

Quality of the Output and Outcome Statements. 

An important criterion for an effective performance 

measurement system is that outputs and outcomes 

must be specific and clear enough to be measurable 

in a meaningful way. One common method for 

achieving such clarity is to provide benchmarks or 

numeric goals that can be used to assess whether a 

numeric target has been met. Especially useful are 

combinations of numeric outputs (e.g., 100 workers 

will receive training) and outcomes (e.g., of the 100 

workers who receive training, 50 will obtain 

employment in a computer-related field). The use of 

both numeric outputs and outcomes enables an 

assessment of both the extent and impact of a 

particular service. 

 

Ten of the 16 case studies had at least one numeric 

benchmark, although it should be noted that the six 

without any number benchmarks all began before 

1998, the year in which ARC revised its application 

and reporting guidelines. Over one-fourth (28.8 

percent) of the 73 statements contained a numeric 

benchmark that could be used to discern the scope of 

the intended impact and (ultimately) assess whether 

the outcome or output had been achieved (table 5-2). 

Most of these numeric benchmarks were either used 

to describe the number of services that would be 

provided (e.g., number of web sites), the number of 

persons or agencies that would receive access to new 

technologies, or the number of individuals who 

would participate in a training activity. Only 5 (13.9 

percent) of the 36 outcome statements contained a 

numeric benchmark—and even these tended to focus 

on the number of persons who would access 

information after it had been made available. 

Exhibit 5-2. Examples of outcomes identified by ARC telecommunications projects

53 
Increased Efficiency 

! Impacts will be quantifiable as (1) avoiding cost--elimination of effort and poor investments, (2) reducing technology

costs, and (3) reducing education and training costs. 

! The availability of accurate, up-to-date information will enhance better decision-making by local governments and 

community organizations. 

! Client referrals will be quicker and more accurate—e.g., time will be saved for agency staff and clients. 

! Some participating agencies will report a decrease in staffing. 

! Some participating agencies will report increased quality of service—e.g., increased contact with participants, faster and 

more appropriate referrals. 

! Staff will be able to collect more accurate data in a more timely manner (and this will impact program design). 

! A major goal will be to reduce the amount of time citizens must spend interacting (dealing with) government and 

community agencies. 

Economic Impact 

! Encourage and develop community pride, respect, and confidence in the future. 

! The project will benefit all sectors of the economy through the various training programs that will be offered. 

! Improved opportunities for economic development. 

! The project will assist member businesses in finding successful product matches and marketing their products on a state 

and worldwide basis. 

! The project will increase sales among area businesses. 

! Approximately 511 businesses are expected to benefit from the project. 

! To utilize the state’s advanced telecommunications infrastructure to help create new jobs in existing businesses, establish 

new businesses, and stimulate the development of new technology applications. 

Increased Knowledge/Skills 

! Upgrade technological skills of community members. 

! Develop or deepen areas of expertise. 

! The lab will be used to run educational software to help students pass the 9th grade proficiency tests 

! The project will lead to increased job skills among area workers. 

! New knowledge and increased skills for clients--as measured by the number of clients who have accessed the Internet for 

relevant information. 

! There will be an increase in the skills and knowledge of agency staff--to be measured through (1) the number of 

additional staff trained, and (2) the number of times state and national web sites are accessed to obtain current 

information. 

Increased Access

! There will be a 10 percent increase in the use of job development/placement data on the State Department of Labor 

Office and County Gateway agencies. 

! There will be a 5 percent increase in (the number of) people accessing information after a web site has been up and 

operating for a year. 

! There will be an increase in the number of people accessing volunteer opportunities through the I&R web site. 

54 
Exhibit 5-3. Examples of outputs identified by ARC telecommunications projects

Increased Capacity 

! The project will allow local businesses to attend meetings in remote locations and pre-screen prospective employees via 

video conferencing. 

! The technological innovations in the new facility will provide the needed flexibility to offer dynamic education and 

training programs of Grant's corporate clients. 

! The Computations Laboratory will permit new course offerings in computer science in response to industry needs and 

support advance mathematics and science curricula as well as support advanced engineering courses. 

! The network will allow the SoOM to deliver database information and other services to medical students in regional 

locations. 

Increased Access

! Provide public access for clients to the Internet when appropriate (at least 6 additional sites). 

! Provide Internet access to at least 20 local governments and 20 medical providers. 

! Measure success by the number of “hits” of users entering the site and/or accessing specific web pages (such as those 

dedicated to economic development or employment). 

! The project will provide Internet access to at least four local government entities. 

! The project will provide distance learning programs for approximately 5,300 students from the public school to the 

community college level. 

Training 

! The cyber campus will have 15 Novell training workshops interconnected through a LAN. 

! The project will provide distance learning opportunities, workshops, video conferencing for schools and businesses, and 

governmental users. 

! An additional 1,400 police officers, firemen, volunteer firemen, emergency medical technicians, etc. will also be offered 

programs. 

! The initial phase of the training program will provide assistance to over 1,500 elected officials, business people, nonprofits, development organizations, and other quasi-government organizations. 

! The project will include 24 training workshops to educate physicians and other health professionals on how to use 

advanced telecommunications technologies to augment their professional services. 

Enhanced Coordination 

! The grant recipient will continue to pursue partnerships with area hospitals to advance telecommunications applications. 

! The grant recipient will continue to strengthen partnerships with educational institutions to promote shared-resources, 

distance learning, and teleconferencing. 

! Departments and agencies will be able to communicate electronically about space available in client-based workshops. 

Develop Web Sites 

! SCUI will contain a regional home page and separate pages for each of six counties of the Upstate with at least 12 

categories each. 

! Develop 21 web sites. 

55 
Many of the outcome statements contained in the 

telecommunications proposals were vague and 

difficult to measure in a meaningful way. The 

following examples demonstrate how projects 

failed to devise outcome statements that were 

clear, specific, and measurable: 

The project will result in increased efficiency

and improved decisionmaking. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The project will encourage and develop 

community pride, respect, and confidence in 

the future. 

Increase regional communication and 

coordination 

The project will benefit all sectors of the 

economy through the various training 

programs that will be offered. 

The project will increase sales among area 

businesses. 

The project will lead to increase employment 

among area workers. 

Develop or deepen areas of expertise. 

Upgrade technological skills of community

members.

Even when outcomes were more specific (e.g., 

“The lab will be used to run educational software 

to help students pass the 9th grade proficiency

tests”), they often lacked critical information 

(e.g., type of proficiency tests or proportion of 

students who would pass the test). While all of 

the proposed outcomes were laudable in their 

aims—and may have occurred as a result of ARC 

funding—they failed to provide any information 

as to how it would be determined if the goal was 

ultimately achieved. This lack of clarity and 

focus was prevalent in most of the projects we 

reviewed, thereby undermining the Commission’s 

ability to systematically document the success 

and impact of its investment in 

telecommunications activities. 

As discussed previously, several factors may have 

been responsible for this lack of clarity. Many of 

the outcome and output statements were crafted 

before ARC’s revised 1998 application and 

reporting guidelines. Thus, less emphasis may

have been given at that time to the quality and 

measurability of statements of impact (both 

outputs and outcomes) in project applications. 

Similarly, it is possible that before 1998, grantees 

and project coordinators treated many output and 

outcome statements as qualitative in nature and 

had not determined how to effectively measure 

them. 

EXTENT TO WHICH CASE STUDY 

PROJECTS ACHIEVED THEIR 

INTENDED OUTCOMES AND 

OUTPUTS

The Commission’s requirement that projects 

submit a final report is intended to help program

officers gauge project achievement and impact. 

The narratives in the final reports submitted by

the 16 case study sites affirmed the general value 

of the projects, and case study findings suggest 

that these conclusions of success were generally

well-founded. Specifically, approximately twothirds of the 73 outputs and outcomes proposed 

by the 16 case study projects were addressed in 

the final reports—and almost all were said to 

have been successfully carried out (not shown in 

tables). The remaining third were not discussed 

in the final reports. 

Site visitors reviewed all existing documentation 

and their own case study notes to verify that these 

73 anticipated benefits were, in fact, achieved. 

As shown in table 5-2, site visitors concluded that 

21 (56.8 percent) of the outputs and 15 (41.7 

percent) of the outcomes were achieved as 

planned. However, site visitors also found that 

there was insufficient evidence to assess the 

success of six (16.2 percent) of the anticipated 

outputs and 21 (58.3 percent) of the anticipated 

outcomes. In some cases, this was because an 

outcome that was described in the proposal was 

56 
not discussed in the final report. In other cases, 

this occurred because the outcome statements 

were vague and not easily measurable—and so 

the resulting narratives provided in final reports 

were less than persuasive. For example, one 

project indicated that its marketing and promotion 

program would “develop community pride, 

respect, and confidence in the future.” This 

outcome was addressed in the final report as 

follows: 

To achieve this shared vision, the 

prevailing mindset that often fostered 

attitudes of isolation and protectionism

needed to be removed and replaced with 

the concept of regionalism. Individuals, 

organizations, and businesses in the area 

needed to be “reminded” of the many

benefits of the region they enjoy and 

may have even taken for granted. [This 

project] provided these “reminders” 

through marketing that highlighted the 

region’s benefits and resources and 

created a focal point and name with 

which everyone could identify.

This statement was then followed by a detailed 

description of the marketing approach that was 

employed, and then concluded: “The goal of the 

local marketing education and awareness 

campaign was to develop community pride, boost 

regional respect, and increase confidence of 

individuals and businesses in the future of the 

area.” No evidence was provided to show that the 

proposed outcome was accomplished—i.e., there 

is no indication in the final report that the project 

actually enhanced community pride, respect, and 

confidence in the future. Rather, the final report 

focuses on the means by which the outcome was 

to be brought about (i.e., marketing). To be sure, 

the difficulty faced by many of the projects was 

due in part to their having to address overly vague 

and not easily measurable outcome statements. 

A review of the final reports submitted by the 16 

case study sites suggests that projects did not 

place much emphasis on collecting new data to 

assess whether their outcomes had been achieved. 

Rather, projects relied on anecdotal evidence, 

used imprecise data collection methods, or 

implemented surveys that failed to take into 

account biases introduced through low response 

rates. For example, one project that indicated it 

would “impact the entire county socially, 

educationally, and economically” failed to collect 

new (or review existing) educational or economic 

data to assess progress toward these goals. 

Another project that proposed to “upgrade the 

technological skills of community members” did 

not make an effort to assess whether this had, in 

fact, occurred. A third project that proposed to 

provide training to almost 3,000 individuals did 

not maintain ongoing counts of the number of 

persons who actually attended these sessions. 

During the site visits, project staff indicated that 

several factors contributed to their failure to 

implement robust collection methods—including 

the difficulty of collecting data on the impact of 

adopting new technologies, a lack of financial 

resources, a lack of expertise regarding evaluation 

techniques, and a lack of understanding about 

how locally collected data could be used to 

document success and improve future activities. 

SUMMARY

While case study findings suggest that ARC’s 

telecommunications projects were generally

successful, evidence of the resulting community

benefits were not readily available by way of the 

Commission’s system for monitoring and 

documenting project performance. However, this 

may have been due in part to ARC’s place on the 

performance measurement implementation 

curve—many of ARC’s telecommunications 

projects began before 1998, the year in which 

GPRA began to exert its influence on ARC’s 

application and reporting requirements. 

Our review of telecommunications proposals and 

final reports suggests that the measurement 

system was lacking in three important ways. 

First, many of the statements regarding 

anticipated accomplishments (in both the 

proposals and the ARC memorandum) were 

57 
actually outputs—i.e., statements involving 

process and activities—as opposed to outcomes. 

While outputs are an important aspect of project 

performance measurement, outcomes more 

directly reflect project impact and achievement. 

Second, while most of the proposals we reviewed 

contained at least one outcome statement, these 

were sometimes vague, not easily measurable, 

and not associated with a numeric benchmark. 

Third, most of the projects we visited did not 

invest adequate time or effort documenting the 

benefits associated with their efforts. 

Looking forward, ARC should use this evaluation 

as a management tool to help sharpen its system

of performance measurement. Chapter 8 provides 

specific recommendations for improving ARC’s 

performance measurement system for its 

telecommunications projects, while taking into 

account some of the practical constraints that may

be faced in implementing such a system.

58 
VI. Implementation Barriers

The majority of ARC telecommunications 

projects encountered at least one obstacle or 

barrier as they carried out their various 

approaches. These problems were generally not 

severe enough to prevent individual projects from

implementing their approach. Specifically, 57 of 

the 70 projects (81 percent) indicated that all of 

their proposed activities had been conducted as 

planned (data not shown in tables). Of the 13 

remaining projects with activities that were not 

fully or successfully implemented, the most 

common problem was either a lack of demand for 

services or lack of participation in activities (not 

shown in tables). Other frequently cited reasons 

for not fully or successfully implementing all 

proposed activities included insufficient funding, 

a lack of organization among partner or projectrelated organizations, difficulties concerning 

relationships with outside organizations or 

entities, changes in personnel, and failure to 

realize the scope of work involved in 

implementing a particular activity. 

This chapter uses information from both the 

survey and case studies to outline the range of 

problems that ARC telecommunications projects 

encountered and assess the impact of these 

problems on project implementation. In some

cases, information is provided on steps that 

projects took to overcome these problems. 

EXTENT TO WHICH 

PROJECTS ENCOUNTERED 

IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS

Survey respondents were provided a list of 13 

administration and planning barriers and 7 

implementation barriers.16 Only 16 of the 70 

projects (23 percent) indicated that they had not 

encountered any of the problems outlined on the 

survey (figure 6-1). Of the remaining 54 projects, 

21 (30 percent) had encountered 1 to 3 of the 

problems cited in the survey, 22 (31 percent) 

cited between 4 and 6 problems, and the 

remaining 11 projects (16 percent) listed 7 or 

more problems. 

Figure 6-1 

Percent of projects reporting number of 

problems in implementing project activities 

(n=70) 

16

31

30

23

0 20 40 60 80 1

Percent of projects

0 problems (n=16)

1-3 problems (n=21)

4-6 problems (n=22)

7 or more problems (n=11)

00

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

The three most commonly cited problems were 

underestimating the time or effort needed (29 

projects, 41 percent), participants not fully

 

16 In some cases, a potential barrier was not relevant to a particular

project. For example, “construction delays” would not have been 

relevant to a project that involved no construction activities. In 

such cases, respondents could answer, “situation did not apply.” In

other cases, however, respondents were forced to answer either yes 

or no because that potential problem was relevant to all projects. 

An example of a potential problem relevant to all projects is 

“underestimating the time or effort needed,” since all projects 

require an initial estimate of this type. 

59 
utilizing services (27 projects, 40 percent), and 

changes in key personnel (26 projects, 37 percent) 

(figure 6-2). Other problems included 

underestimating the potential for obsolescence of 

equipment (18 projects, 28 percent), 

underestimating the resources needed (15 

projects, 21 percent), problems installing 

equipment (13 projects, 21 percent), and 

equipment compatibility concerns (13 projects, 21 

percent). 

The finding that 54 (77 percent) of the 70 ARC 

telecommunications projects encountered at least 

one of the barriers listed on the survey is not 

surprising. Interviews with a wide range of case 

study respondents suggest that the learning curve 

for a number of these technology projects was 

quite steep. This was often due to the more 

complex nature of the telecommunications 

activities that projects were conducting—and the 

inherent difficulty of creating and implementing 

technology projects in communities with limited 

access to information infrastructure. However, 

while some of these problems were prominent, 

they were not severe enough to prevent individual 

projects from achieving their goals. 

Figure 6-2 

Percent of projects reporting implementation problems, by problem type 

10 (n=7)

1 (n=1)

3 (n=2)

4 (n=3)

7 (n=5)

10 (n=6)

10 (n=7)

14 (n=10)

15 (n=9)

15 (n=9)

18 (n=8)

19 (n=13)

21 (n=13)

21 (n=13)

21 (n=15)

28 (n=18)

31 (n=22)

37 (n=26)

40 (n=27)

41 (n=29)

0 10 20 30 40

Other obstacles (n=70)

Matching funds were less than expected or never received (n=70)

Project funds were depleted before implementation (n=70)

Delays in receiving payments or reimbursements (n=68)

Contractual delays or delays in awarding of the grant (n=70)

Problems in developing program materials (n=60)

Underestimating the demand for services (n=67)

Inadequate or unqualified staff (n=70)

Equipment order or receipt delays (n=62)

Delays in contracting with an outside service provider (n=60)

Construction delays (n=44)

Communication problems or misunderstanding of roles (n=70)

Equipment compatibility concerns (n=63)

Problems installing equipment (n=61)

Underestimating the resources needed (n=70)

Underestimating the potential for obsolescence of equipment (n=65)

Local administrative delays (n=70)

Changes in key personnel (n=70)

Participants not fully utilizing services (n=68)

Underestimating time or effort needed (n=70)

Percent

50

NOTE: Projects could report multiple problems. Variation in the totals (n) is explained by item nonresponse or the removal of cases for those 

categories where the situation did not apply.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

60 
IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS AT 

CASE STUDY SITES

The case study sites, while largely successful, 

encountered and addressed a number of 

challenging and often interrelated barriers. While 

some of these obstacles were experienced by a 

significant number of projects (e.g., delays due to 

worse than anticipated technology infrastructures), others were unique to a given 

approach or locality. This section provides more 

detailed information about the most prominent 

barriers encountered by the 16 case study sites.17

Technology Barriers 

Lack of technology infrastructure. A

significant barrier for some of the case study sites 

was the time, cost, and effort required to develop 

the infrastructures that supported their 

technological efforts. Many of the projects 

indicated that their communities’ existing 

physical and telecommunications infrastructures 

were either nonexistent or incompatible. These 

problems, which were sometimes discovered after

a project had been initiated, commonly resulted in 

excessive fees and extensive delays. Some

projects were forced to delay operations until the 

requisite information infrastructure had been put 

in place. However, at least one project indicated 

that as a result of the demand created by the ARC 

project, the local telephone company had installed 

telecommunications lines that were still 

unavailable in many neighboring communities. 

Another project found that many of the buildings 

in which equipment was installed did not have the 

appropriate physical infrastructure (i.e., wiring) to 

accommodate the Internet and other new 

technologies. At times, those installing 

equipment had to run cable through as many as 

three floors to get it where they needed it. There 

were various other minor yet frustrating 

concerns—such as a lack of, or poor placement 

of, telephone jacks and/or electrical outlets. As 

one staff member said, “We found that we could 

take nothing for granted” when installing 

equipment. 

 

17 Throughout this section, project names are withheld to protect the 

identify of respondents who were willing to provide extensive 

information about the types of barriers they encountered during 

their ARC grant. 

Keeping pace with evolving technologies. 

During the period in which projects were 

receiving ARC support, the technology industry

was churning out new advances and upgrades at a 

record pace, making it difficult for projects to 

maintain equipment that could be considered 

current or state of the art. In hindsight, most case 

study sites were satisfied with the equipment they

had purchased. Nonetheless, some case study

projects reported that concerns about 

unanticipated technological advances (and the 

ensuing obsolescence of ARC-purchased 

computers) made it difficult to develop long-term

budgets for telecommunications equipment. For 

example, one project director indicated that 

equipment purchased with ARC funds had 

stopped working—and had not been replaced or 

repaired due to a lack of available funding. 

Another project that had not accounted for 

obsolescence in the budget found that it was 

unable to afford upgrades and replacements. Yet 

another project director stated that his project had 

recently been dealing with the question of 

whether broadband, satellite, or wireless would be 

the dominant method for connecting to the 

Internet of the future. This was precisely the type 

of question that ARC telecommunications 

projects had to face as they purchased equipment. 

While the answer could have a major impact on 

projects, projects often found that these questions 

could not be definitively answered. 

It should also be noted that several case study

sites indicated that an advantage of the rapid 

expansion of technology was the volatility of 

equipment prices. Specifically, when some of the 

grant recipients prepared their original proposals, 

they based their budget considerations on the 

price of equipment at that point in time. 

However, as they actually moved forward to 

purchase the equipment, prices had dropped 

considerably, freeing up valuable funds for the 

project. For example, the drop in computer prices 

allowed one project to purchase more computers 

than originally expected, which in turn made it 

61 
possible to include more participants than initially

projected. 

Keeping pace with end users’ evolving needs. 

One project director indicated that several of the 

partner agencies participating in his ARC project 

had severely underestimated the number of staff 

who would use computers and require Internet 

access. In addition, as the project evolved, end 

users were making more advanced use of the 

Internet (e.g., using computers to share mug shots 

with the region’s police departments—which 

requires greater bandwidth capacity to facilitate 

downloading) than had originally been envisioned 

at the outset of the project. In an effort to keep 

pace with these evolving end users’ needs, the 

project eventually replaced all of the computers 

purchased with ARC funding. 

Another project overcame this problem by hiring 

a technology consultant who met with each of the 

agencies that were scheduled to receive computer 

equipment through the ARC grant. The purpose 

of these meetings was to help agencies maximize 

their utilization of technology. This was 

accomplished through an onsite assessment of 

how individual agencies were using computers 

and the Internet and how these tools might be 

used in the future. (In fact, agencies could not 

make a request for new computer equipment until 

they had met with the technology consultant.) All 

of the end users we interviewed at this site 

reported that the equipment obtained through an 

ARC grant had met their diverse needs. They

also suggested that a strength of the project’s

approach had been the hiring of a technology

consultant who also understood the needs of 

human service agencies—e.g., how such agencies 

might use computers to streamline their 

operations. It was also essential that this 

individual had an adequate understanding of 

computers so as to assess which equipment was 

right for a given agency. 

Underutilization of project technology. Some

case study sites reported that the technologies 

they made available were not fully utilized by end 

users. This problem was especially prevalent 

among projects that purchased videoconferencing 

equipment. Several factors contributed to the 

underutilization of this equipment. First, in some

cases, grant recipients had asked end users if they

would be interested in making use of 

videoconferencing equipment, but had never 

assessed the depth of their interest. Thus, when 

barriers arose (or the novelty wore off), end users 

did not make the extra effort required to use the 

equipment. Second, as this equipment became 

more widely available throughout the community, 

end users no longer found it necessary to utilize 

the videoconferencing studios housed at the grant 

recipient’s offices. Third, several projects did not 

consider in advance the amount of promotion that 

would be needed to inform potential beneficiaries 

of their videoconferencing capabilities. Finally, a 

few sites indicated that the parties they wanted to 

communicate with lacked the requisite 

videoconferencing equipment. The following two 

examples illustrate these issues: 

When one case study site purchased its 

videoconferencing equipment (in the mid1990s), it was considered an emerging 

technology. As such, it was available for use 

at only a few locations in the entire region in 

which the project was being conducted. The 

videoconferencing center was originally

intended to meet the needs of companies 

through training potential employees and 

other similar activities. However, by the time 

of the site visit, these companies had acquired 

and established their own facilities. In 

addition, the use of videoconferencing 

equipment had become a fairly common 

feature in many schools, government offices, 

and other entities. Thus, the demand for use 

of the project’s facilities by outside entities 

had, to a large extent, diminished. 

• 

• Another case study site indicated that a lack 

of promotion contributed to an 

underutilization of its videoconferencing 

equipment. Specifically, the project had 

never assigned anyone the responsibility of 

identifying the types of videoconferencingbased programs that might be of interest to 

potential users. Nor had they hired someone 

to publicize the equipment within their 

community. Equally problematic, 

respondents indicated that some other 

government entities lacked access to the 

62 
requisite equipment—thereby making it 

difficult for the project’s end users to use the 

videoconferencing equipment to

communicate with their counterparts across 

the state. Finally, by the time of the site visit, 

several businesses and educational 

institutions had gained access to similar 

equipment. 

However, some case study sites sustained their 

videoconferencing facilities beyond the life of 

their ARC grant. While it is difficult to draw any

conclusions from this small sample of sites, it 

does appear that projects with a well-defined 

purpose for obtaining videoconferencing 

equipment (e.g., for distance learning) were more 

like to find ways to keep that equipment in use 

over the long term. This was often because the 

equipment was a necessary component of project 

success. Conversely, projects that did not have a 

well-defined purpose for obtaining this equipment 

were less likely to report that their 

videoconferencing equipment was still in use at 

the time of the site visits.

Administrative and Planning Barriers 

Underestimating the time required to 

implement project activities. Almost all of the 

case study projects indicated that they

underestimated the amount of time 

implementation tasks would require, particularly

with regard to technology. Projects that involved 

the installation of equipment were especially

vulnerable to delays in their proposed schedule 

because they often had to rely on external entities 

to provide equipment or carry out other technical 

functions. In some cases, projects fell behind in 

their schedule because of poor communication 

with (or between) service providers. In others, 

delays occurred because there was a lack of 

coordination between those responsible for 

equipment installation and those responsible for 

network implementation. For example, one 

project indicated that it took longer than 

anticipated to get lines installed because the 

requisite telecommunications infrastructure was 

not in place. (The grant recipient had not 

conducted a feasibility study during the planning 

phase, so this problem was not uncovered until 

well into the project’s implementation phase.) A 

contributing factor was that the local telephone 

company was in the middle of internal personnel 

restructuring, which caused further problems for 

the project. 

Staff turnover. Another common problem faced 

by case study projects was a change in or loss of 

key personnel. In some cases, staff members with 

strong technical skills were lured away by

organizations that offered higher paying 

positions. As a result, some sites had insufficient 

technical expertise when faced with the need to 

resolve unexpected problems such as equipment 

failure or repair. For example, one project 

experienced a significant setback when the 

original project director left the staff early in the 

project’s history. During the 9 months until he 

was replaced, the project operated by using, 

according to the current project director, a 

piecemeal or reactive approach to solving 

problems. Without a director to guide them

through such situations, the staff consistently

tried to determine the safe thing to do. However, 

as the current director and members of his staff 

agreed, this approach did not always lead to the 

best outcome. 

Changes in personnel outside the immediate 

project staff also resulted in challenges for some

projects, especially those that worked with 

government organizations or other entities. When 

personnel changes occurred within partners or 

among end users (especially in the leadership), 

there was often a need to “start from scratch” by

articulating to the new staff members the 

importance and relevance of the project, as well 

as what had already been done up to that point in 

time. 

Lack of technical expertise among project 

staff. In addition to encountering difficulties in 

retaining knowledgeable and skilled staff, several 

projects found it difficult to recruit staff with the 

range of skills needed to lead or implement their 

efforts. For example, one case study site 

indicated that the project needed someone who 

understood technology and possessed the 

requisite management and marketing skills to fill 

a leadership position. However, they found it 

63 
difficult to find such a qualified individual in 

their small community. Several other projects 

reported that after they had purchased equipment, 

they lacked reliable access to staff capable of 

resolving unexpected problems such as equipment 

failure or repair. As a result, some projects were 

forced to hire outside consultants and incur 

additional expenses that were not covered by the 

ARC grant. In one project, crucial positions such 

as webmaster were repeatedly open and remained 

so for periods of up to 9 months. Furthermore, 

staff in another project found it difficult not only

to compete with higher salaries, but also to find 

suitable candidates in a small community. 

Problems with equipment vendors. The most 

prominent communication problems uncovered 

during the site visits involved interactions with 

external service providers and venders. In some

cases, these problems arose because project staff 

lacked the experience and expertise to anticipate 

the types of technical issues they were called 

upon to navigate as they purchased 

telecommunications equipment. For example, at 

the beginning of their grant, one project director 

indicated that he did not have an onsite CISCOcertified engineer. Once someone on staff 

became knowledgeable in this area, they found 

that such expertise would have been beneficial at 

the outset of the project—that is, it would have 

made them question some of the advice that was 

being provided by vendors. 

 

At another case study site, project timelines had 

to be adjusted on several occasions due to 

miscommunication between the primary

equipment vendor and the project, thereby

resulting in equipment orders being delayed. In 

addition, there was a lack of coordination 

between those responsible for equipment 

installation and those responsible for network 

implementation, which led to additional delays. 

Eventually, a local consultant was hired by the 

project staff to assist in providing solutions to 

these and other similar problems. 

Project staff in a third case study site indicated 

that the vendors from whom they purchased 

equipment “oversold” what they could do, and 

underestimated the timeframe within which they

could do it. As such, it took longer than 

anticipated for the vendor to deliver routers and 

install lines. In hindsight, the project director 

acknowledged that he should have purchased the 

equipment and services from another 

organization. 

Lack of a comprehensive training agenda. 

Research on efforts to provide training in 

telecommunications applications suggests a range 

of practices that can maximize the likelihood of 

success—including the use of multiple training 

sessions, and providing participants with ongoing 

follow-up support. However, the site visits 

uncovered evidence that several of the projects 

failed to set aside sufficient time and resources 

for training. As a result, some of the end users we 

interviewed felt that they still lacked some of the 

skills needed to take full advantage of their new 

telecommunications tools. Several factors 

appeared to contribute to this limitation in the 

amount of training that end users received. Some

grant recipients failed to appreciate the full extent 

of basic training required by some end users (or 

failed to appreciate end users’ resistance to 

learning about new technologies). Other grant 

recipients solicited input from end users before

they had enough computer experience to make 

informed decisions on their training needs. A 

considerable number of projects lacked reliable—

and consistent—access to good trainers. Finally, 

end users reported that trainers often failed to 

utilize training exercises that demonstrated how 

end users might use a given technology in their 

workplace. 

It is also worth noting that many of the end users 

we interviewed indicated that the training they

received through their ARC project focused 

primarily on the rudimentary skills required to 

operate a specific software program. While some

end users were offered group or one-on-one 

follow-up assistance, others complained that 

instructional support was terminated at the end of 

the ARC grant. As a result, some end users 

expressed concern that although they had learned 

some important introductory skills, they had not 

learned how to fully integrate those skills into 

their daily work routine. For example, end users 

in one case study site indicated that most of the 

64 
training they received was targeted at beginners. 

While such training was clearly needed at the 

outset of the project, these end users suggested 

that the grant recipient might have arranged for 

follow-up training on how to apply the 

knowledge they had gained as part of the ARC 

grant. However, the grant recipient indicated that 

when supplemental courses were offered, most 

end users were intimidated by the “advanced” 

nature of the course work. Based on our 

interviews with project staff and end users, it 

appears that the follow-up training at this site was 

offered before end users had ample opportunity to 

experiment with their new tools. By the time end 

users were in a position to articulate new training 

needs, the grant recipient had moved on to other 

priorities. Thus, while the project had provided 

training to its end users, the training that was 

provided fell short of end users’ expectations and 

workplace needs. 

Lack of a comprehensive marketing strategy. 

A few of the case study sites did not anticipate the 

amount of marketing that would be needed to 

ensure that potential end users would be informed 

of project-related activities or services. For 

example, one project opened a series of computer 

labs with little or no fanfare. In hindsight, the 

staff indicated that they should have campaigned 

more vigorously to promote the labs prior to and 

immediately following their opening. 

A similar problem occurred at another case study

site that was designed to transform an existing 

local database network that allows companies to 

search for potential suppliers, distributors, and 

customers into a statewide Internet site. The 

project coordinator indicated that adequate 

resources were never made available to conduct 

an effective marketing campaign—and that the 

project could have had an even greater impact if 

more marketing resources had been readily

available. 

SUMMARY

As the preceding discussion suggests, 

telecommunications efforts, especially those 

involving the purchase of new and emerging 

technologies, are frequently subjected to 

unpredictable conditions and obstacles. 

Nonetheless, Westat’s studies of other federal 

telecommunications initiatives suggests that some

of the problems uncovered during the ARC site 

visits could have been avoided or mitigated with 

proper planning. For example, a thorough 

assessment of end users’ needs might have 

prevented the underutilization of videoconferencing services reported by some projects. 

In addition, a comprehensive feasibility study—

with an emphasis on reviewing existing capacities 

and assessing emerging technologies—might 

have forestalled problems associated with the 

purchase of incompatible or obsolete equipment. 

Recommendations for helping ARC’s 

telecommunications projects anticipate and 

forestall such problems before they occur are 

discussed in chapter 8. 

65 
66 

VII. Project Sustainability and Expansion

An important measure of the success of an ARC 

project is its sustainability. In recent years, 

federal agencies have placed a premium on the 

ability of grant recipients to maintain projects 

after the initial period of funding. Funders are 

especially eager to support projects that will 

remain operational over time and that will expand 

to provide supplementary services or reach 

additional beneficiaries. With respect to 

telecommunications projects, sustainability and 

expansion mean increasing awareness of and 

capitalizing on new possibilities for growth, and 

the long-term bolstering of communities. 

This chapter examines the operating status of 

projects at the time of the evaluation, as well as 

the extent to which initiatives had expanded or 

generated spin-off activities. It also describes 

factors that influenced whether projects were able 

to sustain themselves beyond their ARC grants. 

PROJECT STATUS

This section provides information on the extent to 

which projects were able to sustain themselves 

beyond the ARC grant, suggests factors that may

have facilitated or hindered grant recipients’ 

efforts to remain viable over time, and assesses 

differences between survey and case study

findings. 

Projects That Sustained or Expanded 

Operations Over Time 

To determine the longevity of ARC’s 

telecommunications projects, respondents were 

asked to indicate their current operating status at 

the time of the telephone survey. Fifty-five 

(79 percent) of the 70 ARC telecommunications 

projects were still fully operational—with 25 (36 

percent) in operation and serving a function about 

the same as that outlined in the original proposal, 

and 30 (43 percent) in operation and providing 

expanded functions (figure 7-1). Additionally: 

Among the 30 respondents who reported in 

the telephone survey that their projects had 

expanded, 28 (93 percent) said they were 

serving more individuals and 24 (80 percent) 

indicated that their project was providing 

more services (see table 7-1). 

• 

• Twenty-one (70 percent) of these 30 projects 

reported that they had expanded in some

other way, including expansions in the 

quantity and sophistication of the 

technologies available to users, additions of 

different industries and sectors, and becoming 

community leaders in encouraging the use of 

telecommunications technologies. 

Figure 7-1 

Current status of projects (n=70) 

43

36

13

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

In operation,

and has

expanded

(n=30)

In operation,

and has stayed

the same

(n=25)

In operation,

and has reduced

(n=9)

No longer in

operation 

(n=6)

Percent

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

Table 7-1 

Number and percent of projects that reported 

various ways their projects have changed since 

the ARC grant 

Changes in projects Number Percent 
Expansions in scope (n=30) 

The project only serves more

individuals......................................... 28 93

The project only provides more

services.............................................. 24 80

The project has grown in another way .. 21 70 

Reductions in scope (n=9) 

The project only serves fewer

individuals......................................... 4 44

The project only provides fewer

services.............................................. 6 67

The project has reduced in another way 5 56 

NOTE: Percentage estimates are based on the projects that indicated 

their project had changed (expanded or reduced) since the end of the 

ARC grant. 

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

Almost three-quarters (22 projects, 73 

percent) of the 30 projects that expanded 

were serving more individuals and providing 

more services (not shown in tables). 

• 

The 30 projects that had expanded were asked to 

review a list and identify factors that had 

facilitated their growth. Four-fifths (25, 83 

percent) of these projects indicated that their 

community had recognized the value of their 

services or the ease of access (figure 7-2). That 

so many respondents indicated that their projects 

expanded in part because the community

recognized their project’s value suggests a “build 

it and they will come” effect of 

telecommunications technology in underserved 

areas. Twenty-three respondents (77 percent) 

cited an increased need for services in the 

community, and 23 (77 percent) cited additional 

areas of need that could be addressed by the 

project. Twenty-one of the 30 respondents (70

Figure 7-2 

Percent of ARC projects reporting various factors that facilitated project expansion (n=30) 

20

3

70

77

77

83

0 20 40 60 80

Percent

The service community recognized the value o

100

f

the services and/or the ease of access (n=25)

Increased need for services

in the community (n=23)

Additional areas of need recognized

since the grant inception (n=23)

Additional funding available for additional

participants or services (n=21)

Other factor (n=6)

Loss of other services in the community that led

the project to take on additional roles (n=1)

NOTE: Projects could report multiple factors 

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

percent) reported the availability of additional 

funding for additional participants or services. 

67 
Most (13) of the 16 case study projects reported 

in the telephone survey that they were serving an 

expanded function. Of these 13, all reported 

serving more end users. The site visits shed 

additional light on factors that facilitated project 

expansion. For example: 

• 

• 

 

Case study projects serving the education 

sector, such as the Allegheny High School 

Cyber Campus and Jefferson Community

College, had reached more students by

increasing their course offerings. The 

Allegheny High School Cyber Campus nearly

doubled in size with the addition of the 

cybertorium and community lab, while 

Jefferson Community College modified its 

computations lab and equipment to 

accommodate more classes and individual 

students. 

Several case study projects serving the 

government sector had also been able to 

provide services to additional counties, 

towns, and agencies. For example, with the 

assistance of state funding, SEDA-COG’s 

Info-Structure Technology Assistance Center 

has been able to include smaller 

municipalities in the project, providing them

with Internet access, e-mail, and word 

processing and database services. 

The ability of case study sites to serve more end 

users was often a direct result of their providing a 

new service. Examples of new services that 

resulted in additional end users included instituting 

new distance learning programs, providing training 

in more advanced software applications (e.g., GIS 

mapping), and adding new equipment and 

capabilities to the existing infrastructure. For 

example, SEDA-COG reached an agreement with 

Team PA to assume responsibility for PA 

SourceNet. Once the transition is complete, 

additional features will be added to the system that 

include (1) a mapping capability that can provide a 

graphic image of business locations and density, (2) 

a business portal that will provide business-related 

information to users, and (3) an “auto-e-mail” 

capability that would allow users to e-mail all 

businesses that matched their search criteria for 

additional information. It is anticipated that the 

addition of these new services will also expand the 

number of end users. 

Projects That Had Reduced Functions or Were 

No Longer Operational 

Fifteen (21 percent) of the 70 projects had reduced 

functions or were no longer operational—with 9 

(13 percent) operating at a reduced function (i.e., 

either serving fewer participants or providing fewer 

services), and 6 (9 percent) no longer in operation 

(figure 7-1).18 Among the 9 projects operating at a 

reduced function, 6 indicated that their projects 

were providing fewer services, and 4 said their 

projects were serving fewer individuals. Five 

respondents reported that their projects were 

reduced in some other way, for example, by

“narrowing the scope of the needs (of users).” 

 

The 15 projects that were operating at a reduced 

function or no longer in operation were asked to 

review a list and identify obstacles that hindered 

their sustainability. Of these, 6 had met the 

identified need and were no longer necessary—

which supports the suggestion that projects must 

continue to meet the needs of the community in 

order to carry on their efforts (figure 7-3). 

Additionally, 5 of the 15 respondents indicated that 

personnel changes hindered their longer term

operational status, and 4 cited technological 

obsolescence. 

Comparison of Survey and Case Study Findings 

on Project Sustainability 

It is worth noting that there were several 

discrepancies between what respondents indicated 

was their project’s status at the time of the 

telephone survey and what was subsequently

reported and observed during the site visits. For 

18 Some of these projects may have been terminal in nature and not 

intended to go beyond the initial grant period. 

68 
Figure 7-3 

Number of ARC projects reporting various factors that have contributed to project no longer 

operating or operating at reduced scope (n=15) 

4

1

1

2

3

3

3

4

5

6

0 5

Other factor

Lack of or poor technical support

Problems with the facilities

Mechanical obsolescence (e.g., equipment became inoperable or unreliable)

Provided services were not considered valuable or were too difficult to use

Lack of funding available for maintenance or operations

Lack of community awareness or support

Technological obsolescence (e.g., better alternatives became available)

Personnel changes 

Met need and project no longer necessary

10

NOTE: Projects could report multiple factors. 

SOURCE: 2002 telephone survey of ARC grantees.

example, one project was described in the 

telephone survey as being in operation and serving 

additional end users. However, during the site 

visit, respondents indicated that the grant recipient 

was no longer actively managing the project—nor 

had it been their intent to do so after the period of 

the ARC grant. In spite of the project’s apparent 

termination, end users were still benefiting from

the equipment they had received through the ARC 

project. (It was left to individual end users to 

maintain and upgrade their equipment.) 

This potential discrepancy between the survey and 

case study findings suggests two ways of viewing 

project sustainability. One way, which represents 

the likely interpretation of many survey

respondents, is to consider a project operational if 

its end users are still making use of project 

equipment—even if the project itself has ceased to 

exist. A second interpretation, which came out 

during the site visits, looks more closely at 

whether the project itself continues to exist beyond 

the ARC grant—and whether steps are still being 

taken to maximize end users’ access to (and 

utilization of) new and emerging technologies. 

Under this second interpretation, several of the 

case study sites had indeed ceased operations in 

that no additional training or technical support was 

being provided to end users (even though those 

end users were still using the technology and 

training that had been obtained through the ARC 

grant). The implications of this discrepancy are 

worth noting. In one site, for example, some of the 

end users that we interviewed indicated that they

would have benefited from supplemental training 

(e.g., how to utilize new technology skills obtained 

through the project) and ongoing access to 

technical assistance. 

69 
Relationship Between Project Status and ARC 

Funding Amount 

Study findings suggest a relationship between the 

ARC funding level and projects’ operating status 

(as reported on the telephone survey). 

Specifically: 

The average ARC funding level for projects 

that were in operation and serving an 

expanded function was $242,000 (not shown 

in tables). 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The average ARC funding level for projects 

that were still in operation but serving a 

function that had stayed the same over time 

was $119,000. 

The average ARC funding level for projects 

that were in operation, but serving a reduced 

function was $112,000. 

The average ARC funding level for projects 

that were no longer in operation at the time of 

the site visit was $57,000. 

One potential explanation for this trend is that 

projects with an ambitious agenda (as evidenced 

by their request for a substantial amount of ARC 

funding) were in a better position to sustain and 

expand their telecommunications efforts. It may

also suggest that smaller projects were primarily

designed to fill a temporary gap or meet an 

immediate need. Our review of other related 

trends in the ARC database and telephone survey

does not suggest any other obvious patterns that 

would link the six projects that were no longer 

operational at the time of the study. 

STEPS TAKEN TO SUSTAIN

PROJECTS OVER TIME 

Case study projects that were able to sustain and 

expand their efforts beyond the ARC grant period 

employed a number of different strategies. Many

grant recipients had the internal capacity to 

support their projects’ development or had 

established partnerships to ensure that they had 

access to the expertise in technology and project 

management that maintaining their projects 

required. These projects were often able to draw 

together multiple sources of funding and achieve 

the support of key stakeholders. In some cases, 

projects had transferred responsibility of certain 

aspects of the project to another organization that 

was able to take the initiative to a new level. 

Each of these strategies is discussed below. 

Internal Capacity 

Grant recipients need to have the capacity to 

handle the demands of the project they have set 

out to implement. As discussed in chapter 4, 

many projects initially lacked the technical 

expertise necessary to choose the most 

appropriate equipment for the project (for 

example, making sure that the various 

components were compatible), or to maintain and 

repair the equipment when necessary. Hiring 

consultants can be expensive, and many projects 

had difficulty offering competitive salaries for 

skilled information technology employees. 

However, some grant recipients took steps that 

enabled them to overcome these challenges over 

the long term. 

For example, MAGICnet was created by a 

partnership between the College of Osteopathic 

Medicine (COM) at Ohio University and the 

Institute for Local Government Administration 

and Rural Development (ILGARD). As an 

educational organization, ILGARD has the 

internal capacity for training and played a 

significant role in developing the training agenda 

and materials. They also have the technical 

expertise on which the project participants can 

rely. Because of their affiliation with the 

University of Ohio, both COM and ILGARD are 

able to take advantage of a vast array of 

resources. However, they also noted that 

providing project participants with the requisite 

skills is a significant issue that needs to be 

addressed on a long-term basis if projects are 

going to succeed. 

Partnerships 

Collaboration has been essential to the success of 

several of the case study projects, because it has 

allowed them to pool their resources and take 

70 
advantage of other resources already in existence. 

Partnerships often resulted naturally from the 

ARC requirement that telecommunications 

projects serve more than one sector of their 

community, and this frequently helped elicit 

broad support for the project. Collaborative 

efforts were also used to address the issue of 

internal capacity to implement and sustain a 

project. Many projects were able to sustain 

themselves by collaborating with local 

educational institutions on which they were able 

to rely for technical assistance and other kinds of 

project-related support. 

Such collaborations allowed partnering 

organizations to play off each other’s strengths. 

For example, the Southern Tier Central (STC) 

Regional Planning and Development Board knew 

the needs of the community from their work with 

local agencies and the ARC. In partnering with 

the local Boards of Cooperative Education 

Services (BOCES), STC was able to incorporate 

BOCES’ experience and expertise in the field of 

education. Together they secured grant money

from the Verizon Diffusion Fund and have 

brought high-speed access to small rural schools 

in the area, and have wired hospitals and other 

public entities with telecommunications services. 

Another project extremely successful at building 

a network of partners was Technology 2020. At 

the time of the ARC grant, Tech 2020 was 

preparing to provide Oak Ridge, Tennessee, with 

new and innovative opportunities to develop new 

businesses in the area of telecommunications 

technology. The project relied on several partners 

to provide investment capital, including Bell 

South, UT-Battelle, the Department of Energy, 

the State of Tennessee, SAIC, Lockheed Martin, 

Bechtel Jacobs Development Company, CROET, 

Oracle, Motorola, University of Tennessee, U.S. 

Internet, and WorldCom. These companies’

contributions ranged from donating hardware to 

$1 million in funding. Tech 2020 also created 

five new organizations that act as a team to 

sustain Tech 2020 ventures. Tech 2020 

continually seeks new investors and works to 

maintain current relationships with local 

businesses and economic development groups. 

Tech 2020 is also able to draw on the 

technological expertise from the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory and other scientific research 

facilities in the vicinity. 

Ongoing Funding 

Seventy percent of telephone survey respondents 

indicated that having additional funding available 

facilitated project expansion. The case study

projects have employed multiple strategies to 

ensure ongoing funding—e.g., seeking 

government funding and subsidies, seeking new 

grant opportunities, enlisting the support of 

corporate partners, and charging fees for services. 

Notably, a number of sites mentioned that 

receiving funding from ARC served as a 

springboard for other funding opportunities. 

Several examples of efforts to obtain ongoing 

funding are provided below. 

The Alleghany High School Cyber Campus 

has received funding from a multitude of 

sources including the ARC, the Rural Internet 

Access Authority (RIAA), and the 

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund 

(TLCF). They also led a fundraising 

campaign, which focused on local businesses 

and raised more than $200,000, which has 

been used to supplement grant money. Staff 

salaries were initially paid for by the North 

Carolina School of Science and Math on the 

condition that within a few years, the local 

school system would take over these costs. 

At the time of the site visit, North Carolina 

was covering a substantial portion of the 

transmission fees of distance education sites, 

but state officials had proposed eliminating 

these subsidies, which would lead to an 

additional $26,000 in annual costs that the 

cyber campus would need to cover. To help 

cover some of the expenses, the project plans 

to charge fees for some of their services; fees 

have already been paid for some video 

production and videoconferencing work, and 

cyber campus staff see this as a viable 

revenue stream. 

• 

• The Marshall University Research 

Corporation also used the fee for service 

strategy. A key component of the campaign 

71 
to create “Advantage Valley,” an economic 

regional entity, was the establishment of a 

web site to link area businesses and provide 

community information for community

members as well as for prospective employers 

interested in learning about the region (its 

transportation, schools, shopping, safety,

etc.). The web site and the Advantage Valley

enterprise relied on annual membership fees 

paid by local businesses and other 

organizations that subscribe to the mission of 

regionalization 

Only two projects cited a heavy reliance on 

volunteers and small-scale fundraising to 

sustain their efforts: the Community Teams 

that were funded as part of MIRA, in 

Southeastern Ohio, as well as the Jackson 

County Distance Learning project, in 

Alabama. In both cases, though, other 

funding opportunities were sought. The 

Jackson County Distance Learning project 

receives state funding for staff salaries from

the Alabama Adult Education Program, and 

the Community Teams in Ohio have received 

advice from and have collaborated with 

Community Support Organizations to pursue 

grants. For example, in Ohio, the Miller 

Business Team, which reorganized into the 

Southern Perry Incubation Center for 

Entrepreneurs (SPICE), has worked 

extensively with ACEnet, a community

organization committed to building local 

capacity to create and sustain a strong 

regional economy. SPICE has received 

funding from sources such as the Ohio 

Department of Development, which gave 

them money to conduct an asset mapping 

survey of the community that will be used to 

assist business development. 

A few projects were trying to build on the 

local tax base, but that has been problematic 

because of the fiscal strain in many of these 

communities. Southern Perry Unified 

Recreation (SPUR), for example, has been 

trying to pass an initiative to create a 

recreational district; similarly, SEDA-COG 

received state funds to expand their efforts 

beyond county-level offices to smaller 

municipalities, such as boroughs and 

townships. However, many of these 

communities have tax bases and budgets that 

are so small that it is difficult for them to 

even cover the monthly fees to an Internet 

provider. This was also the case for 

government sites of the MAGICnet project, 

some of which have had difficulty covering 

ISP fees. In both the SEDA-COG and 

MAGICnet projects however, once the 

project connected sites free of charge for a 

specified period of time, most of those sites 

continued the service when the time came for 

them to pick up their own costs, because they

• recognize the benefits as so vital. 

• 

Buy-In of Key Stakeholders 

Gaining the backing of key stakeholders is 

important because they have the ability to make 

or break a project. Community members must 

see the value in the project and provide the 

demand for the projects’ services. Other 

stakeholders include college administrators and 

lawmakers, who can facilitate additional funding 

and partnerships. 

The experience of Jefferson Community College 

illustrates the role of a project’s stakeholders. At 

the time of the ARC grant, Jefferson Community

College was badly lacking the equipment 

necessary to adequately prepare its students for 

employment in computer science and engineering 

fields. Further, there was no network connection 

at the college as late as 1995. With ARC funding, 

Jefferson Community College installed a 

computations lab in which computer science 

courses could be taught. Respondents pointed out 

that the Jefferson Community College board of 

trustees was, at the time, cool to the notion of 

directing large sums of money toward new 

technologies, given the college’s relatively small 

budget. However, the Vice-President of 

Academic Affairs noted that the success of the 

ARC project made getting new grants easier, and 

the Vice-President for Business Services said that 

once the board of trustees saw the benefits of 

technology to the college, it became far easier to 

persuade them to provide matching funds for new 

grants. In an attempt to encourage community

buy-in, Jefferson Community College also 

72 
developed the e-world learning center web site 

(www.eworldlearningcenter.com), which serves 

as an access point and guide for community

members interested in taking courses to develop 

computer and information technology skills. 

In a similar case, ARC funds were used by the 

Regional Education Service Agency (RESA) of 

Appalachian Maryland to provide equipment and 

technical assistance to local school systems, 

government agencies, and higher education 

institutions to develop telecommunications 

capacity. Most of these efforts were carried out 

in the mid-1990s when Internet access and other 

technologies were being used primarily in higher 

income, heavily populated areas of the state and 

the country. For example, these efforts provided 

both Frostburg State University and Allegheny

College with their first Internet capabilities, but 

RESA had to convince agency heads and 

educational administrators that acquiring new 

telecommunications resources would, in fact, be 

beneficial and cost-effective. The result has been 

that participating institutions have increased 

funding for technology in their organizations.

 

Transfer of Ownership 

In some cases, grant recipient organizations 

realized the benefits of having another 

organization assume responsibility for some or all 

of the project’s activities. The new organization 

may have more financial resources and technical 

expertise, or the ability to reach a broader 

audience. For example, SEDA-COG received 

ARC funds to build upon their Manufacturing 

Marketing Network (M-Net), a database network 

that assisted businesses in locating in-state 

customers for their products and finding reliable 

leads for marketing products within and outside 

the state. The result was PA SourceNet, an 

Internet software-based program that allows 

anyone to search for Pennsylvania businesses 

using a variety of qualifiers (by industry, by

location, by company size, etc.) and allows 

companies to search for potential suppliers, 

distributors, and customers. SEDA-COG and six 

other Local Development Districts (LDDs) 

involved in the project continued to maintain the 

PA SourceNet site with state enterprise 

development funds. However, under an 

agreement with the Team Pennsylvania 

Foundation, a broad-based, statewide economic 

development network, Team PA will eventually

assume responsibility for the site. This agreement 

reflects a significant buy-in by the state and will 

allow both technology modernization and an 

increase in marketing of the system throughout 

the state. Although the system will no longer be 

housed at SEDA-COG, the LDDs will continue to 

help add additional features to the system, such as 

mapping capability that can provide a graphic 

image of company locations and densities. 

SUMMARY 

Findings from both the telephone survey and site 

visits suggest that the majority of ARC-funded 

telecommunications projects sustained themselves 

beyond their ARC grant. More than three-fourths 

of the projects were still in full operation and/or 

had expanded at the time of the telephone survey. 

Projects that had expanded beyond their original 

mission were serving more individuals and 

providing more services than originally intended. 

Several factors appeared to be responsible for the 

high proportion of projects that sustained and/or 

expanded their efforts over time. In most cases, 

there remained a continued need and demand for 

the services that these projects were offering. 

However, in some cases, projects had to modify

and/or expand their mission in order to meet 

additional needs within the community. 

Successful projects were able to secure continued 

funding after the ARC grant, achieve buy-in of 

key stakeholders, and rely on partnerships. 

Strategic planning, however, did not seem to play

a large role. Rather, projects were able to pull 

together different resources and find solutions to 

problems as they arose. 

73 
Summary and VIII. Recommendations 

The wide range of activities uncovered through 

this study makes it difficult to describe a “typical” 

ARC telecommunications project. As with our 

previous studies of the Commission’s education 

and workforce training projects, this lack of a 

one-size-fits-all model was viewed by many case 

study participants as an important feature of 

ARC’s approach to selecting and funding 

projects. It clearly reflects the Commission’s 

emphasis on using its grant solicitation process to 

support the localized needs and capacities of 

individual communities. Through this process, 

ARC continues to provide organizations the 

opportunity to address local disparities and take 

advantage of regional resources. 

Taken as a whole, study findings suggest that 

ARC’s telecommunications projects made 

significant progress toward fulfilling the 

Commission’s goals of (1) building access to 

infrastructure, (2) infusing telecommunications 

technology into the business sector, and (3) 

cultivating the skills and knowledge of the 

region’s citizens to use technology effectively.

Besides these tangible effects, there were other 

impacts on the communities in which these 

projects were situated. Perhaps most importantly, 

the infusion of infrastructure within and across 

communities contributed to an increased 

awareness of the potential of telecommunications 

technologies for improving economies and 

individual lives, especially in areas with little or 

no past exposure to these technologies. The new 

awareness generated by many projects then 

served the critical function of setting into motion 

further advancements in telecommunications 

technology. It appears that many Appalachian 

communities are now learning how to exploit 

these possibilities to benefit themselves and erase 

the digital divide. 

However, it is worth noting that over threequarters (77 percent) of the projects in the study

encountered at least one implementation barrier 

as they carried out their various approaches. This 

was often due to the complex nature of the 

telecommunications activities that projects were 

carrying out—and the inherent difficulty of 

creating and implementing technology projects in 

communities with limited access to the 

information infrastructure. While these barriers 

were generally not severe enough to prevent 

individual projects from achieving their goals, 

they did hinder the efficiency with which some of 

these goals were achieved. 

The remainder of this chapter outlines a series of 

steps that the Commission might take to enhance 

the implementation and impact of its 

telecommunications projects. These 

recommendations reflect suggestions made by

representatives from the 16 case study projects, 

our own observations from the site visits, and our 

review of best practices in other federal 

technology programs. In addition, they are 

designed to build upon ARC’s existing grant 

management structure and reinforce practices 

described in several ARC publications—most 

notably Information Age Appalachia, Preparing a 

Grant Proposal: Five Steps in the Proposal 

Writing Process (an ARC guide for preparing 

successful grant proposals), and Best Practices in 

Telecommunications (a description of innovative 

telecommunications activities that have been 

conducted with ARC support). 

74 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

REINFORCING ARC’S 

APPLICATION AND REPORTING 

GUIDELINES

In previous studies, we have recommended that 

ARC reinforce the application and reporting 

guidelines for its education and vocational 

education/workforce training projects.

Specifically, we have advised that the 

Commission consider developing separate 

guidelines (or supplemental materials) that 

provide customized examples and outcomes for a 

particular issue area. The following 

recommendations identify specific steps that ARC 

might take to further enhance the application and 

reporting guidelines for its telecommunications 

projects. 

Provide more feedback to projects during the 

application review process. Although ARC’s 

grant award process is designed to assure that the 

Commission funds initiatives that reflect local 

and state priorities, project coordinators review 

each application to assure that the proposed 

project is workable and aligned with the 

Commission’s five strategic goals. If needed, 

ARC project coordinators recommend changes to 

the proposed projects to state program managers. 

Findings from the 16 case study sites suggest 

several areas where ARC project coordinators 

could reinforce their efforts to counsel projects 

about potential improvements to their proposed 

approach. For example, given the imprecise 

character of some outcome statements delineated 

by many of the 16 case study sites, ARC project 

coordinators might take a more proactive role 

during the review process in assessing the quality

of the outputs and outcomes proposed by future 

telecommunications projects. This approach, 

similar to one used by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s Technology Opportunities Program

(TOP), would help applicants craft outcome

statements that clearly describe how their efforts 

will benefit end users and the greater 

community—and how those benefits will be 

measured. As part of this process, project 

coordinators could also help applicants more fully

develop the data collection activities that will be 

used to assess whether outcomes have been met. 

In addition, ARC could have someone on staff 

who is familiar with evaluation methodologies 

review proposals (prior to approval) to help 

assess the adequacy of applicants’ proposed 

outcomes and corresponding evaluation 

strategies. 

ARC project coordinators might also use the 

review process to help applicants consider the 

feasibility of their proposed approach. For 

example, applicants might be asked to revise their 

proposals to enhance their discussion of such 

issues as assessing end users’ needs, staffing, 

training, and sustainability. (These issues are 

discussed in more detail later in this chapter.) 

Addressing these issues during the review process 

might help projects avoid some of the 

implementation barriers that were encountered by

the case study projects. 

Reinforce the ARC application materials 

provided to telecommunications applicants. 

The Commission has developed a wide range of 

materials designed to provide prospective 

applicants with generic guidance on what 

constitutes a successful proposal, as well as 

specific examples of the types of 

telecommunications activities it is looking to 

support. Three recent ARC publications are 

worth noting: 

In 1998, the Commission published an 

application workbook designed to improve the 

quality and consistency of the proposals 

submitted to ARC. Under these generic 

guidelines, applicants are urged to describe the 

objectives of their proposed project, provide an 

explanation of how the effort pertains to one or 

more of ARC’s five strategic goals, and offer a 

rationale for their proposed approach. In 

addition, they are encouraged to describe the 

“output and outcome benefits to be derived 

from the project with particular emphasis on the 

• 

75 
extent to which the benefits to the area being 

served by the project will be realized on a 

continuing rather than a temporary basis.” 

Preparing a Grant Proposal: Five Steps in the 

Proposal Writing Process describes steps that 

organizations can take to develop successful 

grant proposals, including (1) identifying a 

problem that can be addressed through grant 

funding, (2) describing expected outcomes, (3) 

devising a proposed approach, (4) locating 

funding sources, and (5) writing a proposal. 

While this guide is designed to provide generic 

advice for securing grant funding from a wide 

range of sources, its principles can be applied to 

the development of ARC proposals. 

• 

• Information Age Appalachia provides a detailed 

“framework under which the ARC and its 

partners will work to bring together the benefits 

of the information revolution to those whom it 

threatens to bypass.” Published in 2001, the 

document further states that the purpose of this 

technology program will be to “stimulate 

economic growth and improve the overall 

standard of living in the region through 

technology-related avenues.” To meet these 

ambitious goals, Information Age Appalachia

outlines a comprehensive range of 

telecommunications activities and outcomes 

that the Commission is seeking to support. 

Additional examples of innovative 

telecommunications activities that have been 

supported by the ARC are provided in a 

separate document on the Commission’s web 

site. 

To reinforce the general blueprint set forth in 

these publications, we recommend that ARC 

develop additional materials that build upon the 

application workbook and Information Age 

Appalachia. Using the framework outlined in the 

current application workbook (see exhibit 8-1), 

the Commission could compel applicants to think 

ahead about avoiding common implementation 

barriers, measuring project success, and 

maximizing the likelihood of long-term

sustainability. 

Exhibit 8-1. ARC application submission 

format and guideline checklist: Current 

instructions for the project narrative 

1. Goals and Objectives—Relate the project to one or 

more of the ARC Strategic Plan goals and to one or 

more of the strategies in your State’s Annual Strategy

Statement. 

2. Purpose and Rationale for the Project—Describe 

the principal purpose and rationale (need) for the 

project and the problem or issues the project will 

address. 

3. Project Description—Provide a detailed description 

of the major project activities, including what will be 

done, who will complete each activity, and a projected 

timeline for project completion. 

4. Relation to Other Local/Regional Activities—

Describe how the project meets the priorities of local 

or regional community or economic development 

plans. Describe efforts to coordinate the project with 

other area economic development activities. 

5. Geographic Area—Identify and describe the 

geographic area to be served. 

6. Benefits and Performance Measures—State the 

expected benefits to be derived from the project in 

quantitative and qualitative terms. State the outputs 

and outcomes in accordance with ARC Performance 

Measurement Guidelines. 

7. Funding Need—Detail the need for ARC funding and 

identify each different funding source for the project. 

Attach letters of commitment for all additional 

funding sources. 

SOURCE: ARC Project Application Workbook.

Exhibit 8-2 illustrates how the existing generic 

guidelines might be expanded and adapted to 

provide specific guidance about the types of 

76 
Exhibit 8-2. Potential enhancements to ARC’s submission format and 

guideline checklist for telecommunications projects*

1. Goals and Objectives—Relate your proposed project to one or more of the focus areas delineated in Information Age 

Appalachia. 

2. Purpose and Rationale for the Project—A compelling application defines a problem or set of needs that can be addressed 

through the use of technology. You should use this section of your proposal to describe the principal purpose and rationale 

(need) for the project and the problems or issues the project will address—with special emphasis on (1) the specific 

educational, economic, community, or family/individual well-being need(s) that your initiative will attempt to address, (2) 

the characteristics of the intended beneficiaries, and (3) the disparities (e.g., economic, educational, lack of access to the 

information infrastructure) that exist within the regions to be affected by your project. 

3. Project Description—Competitive applications demonstrate a logical link between the problem(s) they define and the 

solution(s) they propose. In this section, discuss how you will use your ARC telecommunications grant to address the 

problem(s) you defined in the preceding section. In writing this section, you should attempt to address as many of the 

following points as possible: 

! How will the solution that you are proposing address your community’s specific economic, educational, and 

technology needs?

! What is your rationale for selecting this approach? Have you considered any alternative approaches for addressing 

the disparities described in your proposal?

! Have you assessed (or do you plan to assess) the feasibility of your proposed approach? For example, have you 

determined whether your community’s existing infrastructure is sufficient to support your project’s technology?

! What is your plan for hiring and maintaining knowledgeable staff with experience in the technology that you are 

proposing?

! What steps have you taken to assess the technology needs of your intended beneficiaries? Of assessing the extent to 

which your intended beneficiaries are likely to make use of your proposed technological solution?

! What steps will you take to provide immediate and long-term technology training to your intended beneficiaries?

! What steps will you take to provide telecommunications services to multiple sectors?

! What steps will be taken to sustain the telecommunications effort beyond the ARC grant?

! What steps will be taken to provide technical assistance and technology training to end users beyond the ARC 

grant?

! Do you anticipate that the project’s scope will eventually increase? For example, are there plans to expand the 

number of beneficiaries or increase the range of telecommunications services provided through this project?

*Some of the text for this example was taken from the FY2002 application guidelines for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

Technology Opportunities Program (TOP).

77 
Exhibit 8-2. Potential enhancements to ARC’s submission format and 

guideline checklist for telecommunications projects (continued)

4. Relation to Other Local/Regional Activities—Once you have presented a coherent and convincing discussion of the 

project definition and shown that what you propose is feasible, you should demonstrate that the communities to be served 

by the project support it and will participate in its development. Specifically, describe the steps you have taken to include a 

wide variety of community stakeholders in the planning and development processes. For example, have you held open 

meetings, conducted surveys, employed focus groups, met with representatives of different community groups, or 

developed a steering committee or advisory panel that involves end users and other key stakeholders?

5. Geographic Area—Identify and describe the geographic area to be served by your project. You should consider presenting 

a profile of the community or communities to be served and the intended beneficiaries of the project, citing supporting 

statistics (e.g., per capita income, percent of households living in poverty, population density, size of the region, relevant 

health statistics) as appropriate. You may wish to append materials such as maps and other geographical representations to 

illustrate the scope of the project. You can also bolster your presentation by using specific quantitative data to document the

nature and extent of the community’s needs. 

6. Description of Anticipated Project Benefits—Provide a description of the benefits that you expect to occur as a result of 

your project. For example, describe how you expect that individuals will use project-related technology to enhance their 

skills, improve their productivity, or expand their access to previously unavailable information. You might also indicate 

how your project will affect your overall community—e.g., enhanced employment opportunities, increased access to highquality medical care. 

 

7. Anticipated Project Outcomes—When describing project outcomes, it is helpful to keep in mind the distinction between 

project outputs and outcomes. Outputs may be thought of as a unit of service or the result of the project's activities—e.g., 

number of training classes held, number of “hits” to your home page. Such data are important because they often lead to the 

desired or expected outcome(s). Outcomes, on the other hand, are the benefits derived from the project activity or the 

consequences of project participation. Outcomes reflect a changed state or condition of your target population or the project 

beneficiaries—e.g., an increase in local employment rates, a decrease in response time for 911 emergency calls. For 

example, a telecommunications project designed to computerize a food distribution program for the elderly might anticipate 

the following outcomes: 

# An increase in the program’s ability to match meals with individual recipient’s dietary needs. 

# A 20 percent increase in the number of elderly persons receiving food donations. 

# A 5 percent increase in the percentage of elderly residents within the community who report having healthy meals on a 

regular basis. 

# A 15 percent reduction in the time needed for elderly recipients to apply for food assistance. 

# A 10 percent reduction in food spoilage in storage facilities. 

# A 10 percent reduction in administrative costs for service providers and food donors. 

This section should also specify your plans and corresponding schedules for collecting the outcome data that will be needed 

to assess whether intended outcomes have been achieved. 

8. Funding Need—Detail the need for ARC funding and identify each different funding source for the project. Attach letters 

of commitment for all additional funding sources. 

issues that applicants should address in their 

telecommunications proposals. (Many of the 

questions posed in this example address issues 

described later in this chapter.) Enhanced 

application materials would also enable ARC to 

provide additional guidance as to how it expects 

projects to interpret the “guiding principles” 

delineated in Information Age Appalachia. For 

78 
example, the materials could be used to require 

that applicants describe their proposed approach 

for (1) providing telecommunications services to 

multiple sectors, (2) sustaining local operations 

without continued infusions of grant monies, and 

(3) creating solutions that are affordable to the 

community. 

Provide prospective applicants with examples 

of telecommunications outputs and outcomes. 

While many of the case study sites included at 

least one numeric output or outcome in their 

proposal, these statements primarily focused on 

the number of services that would be provided 

(e.g., number of web sites), the number of persons 

or agencies that would receive access to new 

technologies, or the number of individuals who 

would participate in a training activity. Only 5 of 

the 36 outcome statements that we identified in 

the case study proposals contained a numeric 

benchmark—and even these tended to focus on 

the number of persons who would access 

information after it had been made available. All 

of the numeric benchmarks that we reviewed 

were necessary and useful. However, evidence 

from the site visits suggests that most of the 

projects had difficulty identifying intermediate 

and long-term outcomes commonly associated 

with technology projects. 

The Commission clearly recognizes the need for 

its applicants to use their proposals to set realistic, 

achievable and measurable outcomes. In 

Preparing a Grant Proposal: Five Steps in the 

Proposal Writing Process, organizations are 

encouraged to focus on how their efforts will 

benefit participants and the broader community: 

As a result of your intervention or activity, 

what will occur? How will things change? 

What will the world—or your 

community—look like once you fix the 

problem or change the situation? 

In an effort to help prospective technology

projects address these questions in their 

proposals, we recommend that the ARC prepare 

supplemental materials that demonstrate the range 

of outputs and outcomes that might be attributed 

to a generic telecommunication project. For 

example, several variations of the logic model 

presented in chapter 5 might be developed and 

posted on the ARC web site. We further 

recommend that successful telecommunications 

applicants be required to specify (1) which 

community goal(s) their projects are designed to 

address, (2) a numeric benchmark against which 

their progress can be assessed, (3) a description of 

the timeframe within which this benchmark will 

be achieved, (4) a description of the methodology

that will be used to assess whether the numeric 

benchmark was achieved, and (5) a description of 

how and when the data will be reported to ARC. 

Projects could also provide information about any

other numeric outputs and outcomes that can be 

used to document the scope and impact of their 

efforts. As discussed above, projects that fail to 

specify numeric outcomes could be asked to do so 

during the review process. 

Applicants might also be provided standardized 

criteria for estimating the number of persons 

expected to benefit from their ARC grant. The 

use of such standardized criteria might improve 

the quality of the statistics that are reported to 

ARC, thereby enhancing the Commission’s 

capacity to aggregate outcome data across all of 

its telecommunications projects. 

Encourage applicants to describe how 

technology will affect residents and 

organizations in participating communities. 

There is an inherent danger that a requirement to 

specify a numeric benchmark will reduce 

projects’ expectations of what they need to report 

about their anticipated activities and outcomes. 

Our experience with ARC and other federal 

telecommunications initiatives suggest that the 

impact of introducing technology into a 

professional or educational setting cannot always

be adequately conveyed through the attainment of 

a numeric benchmark. Rather, it requires a more 

thoughtful discussion of how individuals are 

using technology to enhance their skills, improve 

their productivity, and expand their access to 

previously unavailable information. As such, we 

79 
recommend that ARC encourage its applicants to 

support their statistical benchmarks with broader 

statements of how the circumstances of 

Appalachian citizens will be improved through 

the use of telecommunications technology. These 

statements provide projects an important 

opportunity to describe how their efforts might 

eventually improve the efficiency and quality of 

activities performed by individuals and 

organizations. ARC should therefore view the 

recommendation for including numeric 

benchmarks as an enhancement to—as opposed to 

a replacement of—the narratives that applicants 

are currently required to provide in their 

proposals. 

Reinforce ARC’s reporting structure. If ARC 

is to be in a position to identify innovative and 

successful telecommunications practices, its staff 

will need to be able to systematically access more 

detailed information about the implementation 

and impact of its projects. One method would be 

to enhance the quality of the final reports that 

projects submit at the end of their ARC grant. 

ARC grant recipients are currently required to 

submit a final narrative and financial report when 

they complete their project. The ARC Grant 

Administration Manual contains general 

guidelines and examples of topics that projects 

might address in their final report.19 However, 

findings from our document review suggest that 

this lack of mandated uniform reporting 

requirements has resulted in an uneven quality to 

the closeout reports submitted by the technology

projects. In addition, interviews with case study

respondents suggest that projects would actually

welcome more structured reporting 

requirements—so long as those requirements are 

not onerous or unrealistic. 

We therefore recommend that ARC develop 

closeout report guidelines that are to be used by

all of its technology projects. Exhibit 8-3 

provides an example of how the general 

guidelines in the current ARC Grant 

Administration Manual might be adapted to the 

Commission’s telecommunications projects. 

Whatever format is used, the use of a more 

formalized reporting structure would likely

enhance project coordinators’ ability to obtain 

consistent data that can be used to assess 

project—and program—success. In addition, 

while some grant recipients might continue to 

rely primarily on anecdotal information, the use 

of standard reporting guidelines should compel 

projects to rely on more sophisticated and robust 

data collection and analysis techniques. 

 

19 The instructions that accompany these guidelines state, “You may 

find the attached outline useful in compiling your report, though 

you have flexibility in how to best present information for your 

project.”

Continue to disseminate information about 

innovative telecommunications practices to 

prospective grantees. The digital divide is 

commonly used to refer to gaps in access to new 

and emerging technologies; it can also refer to 

gaps in knowledge about how new and emerging 

technologies might be utilized. Indeed, most of 

the projects that we visited were implementing a 

conventional telecommunications strategy, such 

as enhancing computer and Internet access to 

businesses, government agencies, or residents. 

While these types of activities are both necessary

and valuable, it is worth noting that few of the 

telecommunications strategies that we reviewed 

were pioneering or groundbreaking. This likely

reflects the reality that many of the case study

sites were designed to address an immediate 

community concern (e.g., obtaining basic Internet 

access for community residents). Indeed, many

of the communities we visited were not ready to 

experiment with more innovative technological 

applications at the time they applied for ARC 

funding. 

While many of the projects that we visited were 

relying on conventional telecommunications 

strategies, Information Age Appalachia calls for 

future projects to “be open-minded” and 

“introduce new practices.” ARC currently uses a 

variety of methods to disseminate ideas about 

innovative technology applications. For example, 

the Commission’s web site includes examples of 

innovative technology initiatives that have been 

carried out with ARC support. We believe that 

80 
ARC should continue its existing efforts to 

inform community leaders about innovative 

applications for new and emerging technologies. 

Specifically, we suggest that the Commission 

continue to add new information to its web site 

about creative telecommunications projects and 

links to other useful technology-related web sites. 

We further recommend that ARC carry out the 

ull range of technical assistance activities 

outlined in Information Age Appalachia—e.g., 

technical assistance and consultations, an online 

“Yellow Pages” directory of regionally based 

technology resources, workshops (via 

teleconference and traditional means), outreach to 

identify new public and private partners, the 

development of an advisory board, and liaison 

with other federal agencies. 

f

Exhibit 8-3. Example of potential ARC guidelines for telecommunications final reports 

Background—Provide a short statement regarding the need for this project. What problems did you hope to solve 

when you applied for ARC funding?

Activities—Describe in detail what actually happened during this grant cycle, and explain how you implemented the 

project activities. If there were significant changes to your program during the course of the project, or if the project 

was implemented differently than described in your original proposal, please describe those changes here. 

Description of Project Benefits—Provide a description of how individuals are using project-related technology to 

enhance their skills, improve their productivity, and expand their access to previously unavailable information. 

Also, assess the extent to which your project has addressed the problems or needs that you identified in your original 

request for ARC support. 

Outcome Data—Provide any data that documents the outcomes associated with your project. Data will vary

according to the type of project you completed, and it may be difficult to provide data at this time. However, it is

very important to gather this kind of information so both your organization and ARC can document our successes. 

At a minimum, report on the extent to which you met the numeric goals that you identified in your original request 

for ARC support. 

Problems Encountered—What would you do differently if you were starting this project again? Describe any major 

problems that may have occurred during the implementation of your project. Knowing the types of difficulties you 

encountered and how you resolved them will be helpful to other technology grantees that may be interested in 

replicating your program. 

Program Continuation and Sustainability—This section should describe whether and how you intend to continue 

program activities after the end of the ARC grant period. Will the program continue with other funding, and if so, 

what other sources of funds have been identified? If the program is to be discontinued, has it served its purpose, or is 

there still a need to solve the problems you were addressing? What additional steps are being taken to obtain other 

resources needed to continue the project?

Conclusions and Recommendations—This section summarizes your project and the lessons learned during its 

implementation. Include a review of your successes and suggest ways that your experiences may be helpful to others. 

Attachments—Attach any material that helps to describe your project and documents your success, such as 

photographs, news clippings, maps, videotapes, or web site addresses. Also, please attach copies of any written 

evaluations that may have been completed for your project. 

SOURCE: Adapted from the ARC Grant Administration Manual.

81 
While these activities cannot, by themselves, 

provide sufficient information for prospective 

grantees, they can point applicants in the right 

direction and lead them to useful resources 

(including staff at “model” or exemplary

projects). We believe that these activities will 

help to provide rural communities with valuable 

information about innovative ways to utilize new 

and emerging technologies. 

Provide projects with written materials on 

high-quality evaluation practices. Most of the 

16 case study sites did not appear to be 

emphasizing the collection of data or use of 

evaluation methods to assess whether their 

outcomes had been achieved. Rather, projects 

were relying on anecdotal evidence, using 

imprecise data collection methods, or 

implementing surveys that failed to take into 

account biases introduced through low response 

rates. Several factors contributed to projects’

failure to implement robust collection methods—

including the difficulty of collecting data on the 

impact of adopting new technologies, a lack of 

financial resources, a lack of expertise regarding 

evaluation techniques, and a lack of 

understanding about how locally collected data 

could be used to document success and improve 

future activities. 

In light of these problems, ARC should provide 

applicants and grant recipients with written 

materials that describe suitable evaluation 

practices. Such materials could be designed to 

help guide projects through their own evaluations 

by highlighting data collection and analysis 

methodologies, identifying typical pitfalls in 

evaluation, and describing good reporting 

practices. Simply assuring grantees that they are 

taking appropriate steps is also likely to be 

helpful. Westat has developed many such 

materials, and others are readily available. These 

could be adapted for use by ARC 

telecommunications projects and posted on the 

ARC web site. 

In addition to offering training to Local 

Development Districts and state-level program

managers, ARC might also offer evaluation 

workshops to applicants, grant recipients, and 

evaluators. These workshops might cover such 

topics as selecting evaluators, budgeting for 

project evaluations, devising meaningful study

questions, determining appropriate methodologies for assessing whether a particular 

objective has been achieved, working with 

external evaluators—e.g., to assure that 

methodologies are properly selected and applied, 

assuring that evaluations are conducted in a costeffective and reliable manner, displaying data in a 

meaningful and useful manner, interpreting and 

using data, and preparing effective evaluation 

reports. 

ISSUES TO ADDRESS WITH 

ARC TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

PROJECTS 

The previous section outlined a series of steps 

that the ARC could take to reinforce the 

framework within which its telecommunications 

projects are selected and managed. This section 

addresses some of the significant barriers that 

hindered the implementation and impact of some

case study sites. ARC might use the framework 

described in the previous section to help future 

telecommunications projects anticipate and, if 

possible, avoid these barriers. 

Assessing end user needs. Our review of case 

study findings suggests that the most successful 

projects generally sought input from their 

stakeholders and end users from the very

beginning, and involved them in every phase of 

the project. Half of the projects that we visited 

took steps to assess the needs of their prospective 

end users before finalizing their 

telecommunications approach. Some of these 

sites used surveys or focus groups to assess end 

users’ equipment and training needs; others 

included representatives from various end user 

groups on their board of directors. One site went 

so far as to conduct extensive on-site needs 

assessments with each of its 24 partners. As a 

82 
result of these visits, the project decided to alter 

its original strategy (i.e., providing the same 

equipment to all partners to maximize 

compatibility and minimize costs) in favor of 

purchasing computers and other equipment that 

matched end users needs and capabilities. 

Conversely, the least successful telecommunications projects were those that 

unwittingly forced a vision or approach on their end 

users—a strategy that increased the potential for 

differing expectations and conflicting goals. A 

number of the projects that we visited appeared to 

have selected a technology solution before 

assessing whether a significant number of end users 

were indeed interested in using it. In addition, 

several of the projects that did survey prospective 

end users failed to do so in a manner that 

encouraged extensive discussions of how (or even 

whether) the equipment would likely be used. For 

example, a few projects used their surveys to ask 

end users whether they would use a given 

technology if it were made available to them—as 

opposed to identifying ends users’ informational 

needs and then searching for appropriate ways of 

addressing those needs. In some instances, this 

“build it and they will come” (or “buy it and they

will use it”) strategy appears to have contributed to 

an underutilization of videoconferencing equipment 

and other project resources. A more thorough 

needs assessment by these sites might have 

promoted a better understanding of the long-term

training that would be required to assure that end 

users make full use of project-related technology. 

ARC has traditionally funded a range of strategic 

telecommunications planning activities. In addition 

to these formal efforts, we recommend that the 

Commission encourage that all of its technology

projects invest the time and energy required to 

determine whether end users need (or will use) a 

particular approach (and, if so, under what 

conditions). In most cases, this inquiry can be 

accomplished through early discussions with 

prospective end users and other community

stakeholders about (1) the scope of the problem, (2) 

the range of desired outcomes—for both end users 

and the overall community, (3) the full range of 

acceptable strategies that might be used to bring 

about these desired outcomes, (4) the likelihood 

that end users will make use of new technology, 

and (5) the type of training that will be needed to 

maximize end users’ knowledge of how to integrate 

telecommunications technology into their work, 

school, or home environments. While such an 

assessment will not assure project success, it will 

likely help some grant recipients develop a 

framework for documenting and addressing the 

technology needs of their end users. 

Assessing project feasibility. We did not 

systematically document the extent to which 

projects conducted formal (or informal) feasibility

studies. However, a number of the case study

sites admitted that they would have benefited 

from a more thorough assessment of the 

feasibility of their proposed approach. These 

sites were often surprised by the amount of time 

required to develop the necessary infrastructure 

and purchase equipment. This failure to gain 

information that could help them realistically plan 

their approach often resulted in significant delays, 

unforeseen expenses, and requests to ARC for 

extensions.20

We therefore recommend that ARC intensify its 

efforts to assure that telecommunications projects 

assess the feasibility of their proposed 

approach—either before submitting an 

application to ARC or as part of their initial 

planning process. This assessment could be used 

to identify technical barriers (e.g., poor quality of 

the existing telecommunications infrastructure), 

organizational barriers (e.g., lack of strong 

commitment among some influential 

stakeholders), and management issues (e.g., need 

to hire technical staff with the requisite skills) that 

should be addressed before the implementation 

phase. It could also be used to delineate the range 

of technical skills that will be needed to fully

implement the proposed approach—and the 

strategy that will be used to assure that these 

 

20It should be noted that our evaluations of other federal 

telecommunications initiatives have uncovered similar problems 

associated with the lack of a needs assessment or feasibility study. 

83 
skills are accessible throughout the duration of 

the project. 

It may not be necessary for all telecommunications projects to conduct a comprehensive 

feasibility study. Smaller projects may only need 

to hold ongoing meetings with their partners to 

identify likely hurdles before they arise. (In such 

cases, ARC project coordinators could also 

engage grant recipients in a conversation about 

project feasibility during the review process or 

soon after grants are awarded. The purpose 

would be to help new projects identify a range of 

issues they may need to consider before finalizing 

their approach.) However, the experiences of 

other federal telecommunications programs 

suggest that complex technology initiatives—

especially those in rural communities with limited 

access to the information infrastructure—can 

benefit from a feasibility report that identifies 

potential barriers and lays out nuts-and-bolts 

issues that need to be addressed. Once 

developed, this report can provide stakeholders 

with a detailed roadmap of how they will progress 

from their present status to where they would like 

to be. To promote such front-end planning, the 

Commission might consider developing criteria 

(e.g., project complexity, limited access to the 

information infrastructure) for identifying 

telecommunica-tions projects that would be 

eligible to receive financial support to assess the 

feasibility of their proposed approach. 

Staff turnover. The very nature of technology

projects requires that end users have quick and 

dependable access to technical staff who can 

provide ongoing training, maintain the 

equipment, resolve problems, and identify new 

and useful products. However, study findings 

suggest that rural telecommunications projects are 

especially vulnerable to losing their technical 

staff to organizations that can offer higher wages, 

benefits, and career/educational advancement 

opportunities. This staff turnover can harm a 

project in many ways. At a minimum, it can 

delay a project’s progress. If the problem

persists, however, the loss of key staff can cripple 

a project’s ability to keep pace with technological 

advances and end users’ demands. It is therefore 

important that projects remain aware of the 

potential for staff turnover and devise creative 

methods for overcoming the high cost of 

maintaining computer specialists. While it may

not be possible for rural projects to avoid such 

problems, they can be encouraged to use their 

applications to describe their plans for hiring and 

maintaining knowledgeable staff with the 

requisite technical expertise. If this issue is not 

adequately addressed in the proposal, ARC 

project coordinators might ask projects about 

their staffing plans during the review process. 

Staff expertise. Some of the projects we visited 

were able to assemble an impressive array of 

technical experts who helped guide strategic 

decisions. For example, one grant recipient 

contracted a telecommunications consulting firm, 

establishing a fruitful and continuing relationship 

that has lasted for over 5 years. Another grant 

recipient that lacked the requisite technical 

expertise relied on a high school student to assess 

end users’ computer needs. Projects also used 

college faculty and students to augment their 

technical assistance capabilities. 

However, several other projects indicated that 

they lacked access to knowledgeable technology

staff. In a few cases, projects did not appear to 

realize that they lacked access to useful 

technology expertise until it was too late. For 

example, one project made decisions regarding 

equipment purchases that turned out to be naïve 

or impractical. Representatives of this project 

indicated that they were too reliant on advice 

offered by vendors—and would have made more 

informed decisions if they had access to staff with 

the requisite technology knowledge. 

One option would be for ARC to encourage grant 

recipients that lack the requisite expertise to 

include funding in their proposals for outside 

technology consultants. These consultants could 

then help grant recipients navigate the range of 

technological issues that are commonly addressed 

by telecommunications projects. Given the 

problems experienced by case study sites that 

84 
relied on technology vendors, we would further 

recommend that grant recipients be warned 

against relying on consultants who are tied to a 

specific product or technological approach. 

When such consultants are not available in the 

immediate community, ARC might suggest other 

resources (e.g., nearby colleges and universities) 

that projects can gain access to for help in dealing 

with specific issues. Another option would be for 

ARC to develop guidelines that delineate the 

range of staff skills that are commonly associated 

with successful technology projects. These 

specifications might help to prepare projects for 

the range of issues they will need to address as 

they consider the feasibility of their proposed 

approach. 

Training for end users. Information Age 

Appalachia highlights the need for activities 

designed to assure that Appalachian residents 

have the skills required to make effective use of 

new and emerging technologies: 

In addition to access, the people of 

Appalachia must have the appropriate 

knowledge to use technology in ways to 

enhance their children’s education and 

improve their own job skills. This will 

require upgrading the skills of teachers, 

creating training opportunities for local 

leaders including the LDD, IDA, SBDC 

staffs, and other interested parties such as 

Chambers of Commerce. 

However, the study uncovered evidence that 

without appropriate training, end users may lack 

the requisite skills to fully utilize their new tools. 

Project staff and end users in the case study sites 

provided numerous recommendations as to how 

ARC’s telecommunications initiatives can 

enhance their training component, including: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Solicit input from end users as to the content 

and format of training; 

Anticipate the need to provide some end users 

with training in such basic computer skills as 

keyboard functions; 

Develop training exercises that demonstrate 

how the technology fits into the workplace 

and embed training in the actual duties staff 

will be performing—e.g., train staff not only

in the use of Excel, but also in the use of 

spreadsheets to perform a common and 

necessary administrative function. 

Provide trainees with written materials that 

they can share with others and/or refer back 

to at a later date. 

Tailor training to the skills and needs of 

specific categories of end users. 

Provide follow-up training to end users. 

These last two recommendations merit additional 

consideration. With respect to tailoring 

instruction, research suggests that technology

training is most effective when it is designed to 

address end users’ skills and needs. Several of 

the case study sites developed separate training 

sessions for different participant types. For 

example, one site prepared additional training to 

help physicians access credible medical 

information and navigate computer-based health 

applications. Another project asked teachers to 

bring in course materials so that training could be 

tailored to reflect their lesson plans. However, 

end users at other case study sites indicated that 

they had attended “opportunistic” training 

sessions that were designed to instruct a mix of 

individuals simply because it was convenient for 

them to meet at a given time. Because 

participants often had differing job functions and 

technology proficiencies, the resulting training 

was often too broad to be of any lasting value. 

Projects might therefore be encouraged to host 

training sessions that target workers who perform

similar duties and/or possess comparable 

technology skills. While this might require 

additional time and resources (e.g., additional 

sessions to accommodate different end user 

types), it would enable projects to customize their 

lessons and instructional materials to the skill 

levels and needs of a common core of end users. 

85 
With respect to follow-up assistance, the training 

received by the majority of the end users we 

interviewed tended to focus on the basic skills 

required to operate computers or a specific 

software program. While some end users were 

offered group or one-on-one follow-up assistance, 

others complained that instructional support was 

terminated at the end of the ARC grant. As a 

result, some end users indicated that they had not 

received the follow-up support that was needed to 

help them integrate new software into their daily

work routine. It appears that the lack of followup training can be attributed to two factors: 

Some grant recipients indicated that their 

projects were primarily designed to provide 

end users with new equipment and basic 

information about how to operate a range of 

software programs. As such, they did not 

take steps to optimize the ability of their end 

users to integrate new equipment and 

software into their workplace. Nor did they

attempt to help end users obtain access to 

follow-up training. We therefore recommend 

that the Commission encourage projects to 

offer follow-up assistance to end users who 

are interested in extending their technology

knowledge beyond the rudimentary skills that 

are often emphasized during such 

introductory training. 

Other grant recipients lacked the financial or 

staff resources to provide follow-up training 

and assistance beyond the period of the ARC 

grant. To overcome this barrier, ARC might 

consider the feasibility and potential benefits 

of funding regional technology training 

initiatives that are designed to help citizens in 

adjoining communities maximize their 

utilization of new and emerging technologies. 

The ARC is currently offering community

workshops on demand aggregation—a 

technique for identifying and accumulating 

existing and potential demand for 

telecommunications in an area. While this 

technique is generally used to create enough 

volume to entice private-sector investment in 

facilities, it might also be used to harness a 

critical mass of demand for technology

training. 

In providing follow-up, projects should be 

mindful that individuals who are using computers 

for the first time may not be able to articulate how 

they want to use these new tools. In such cases, it 

might be helpful to offer one-on-one follow-up 

that is tailored to the skills and functional needs 

of individual end users. 

Project sustainability. According to Information 

Age Appalachia, “The Commission desires to 

promote projects that will have the capability of 

remaining in operation without continuing 

infusions of grant monies.” This statement 

suggests that ARC is looking to fund projects that 

will take steps to assure that their end users 

continue to have access to—and make optimal 

use of—state-of-the art technology beyond the 

period of the ARC grant. 

• 

• 

In light of this goal, it is worth noting that some

survey respondents considered their projects to be 

operational (i.e., end users were still making use 

of project resources)—even though site visits 

revealed that project-related activities had ceased 

and there had been no sustained effort to provide 

end users with ongoing training or technical 

support. In essence, these respondents were 

indicating that while the impact of their efforts 

had endured, the actual activities associated with 

the projects (e.g., training and technical 

assistance) had ended—even though some end 

users at these sites indicated a need for additional 

assistance. 

We therefore recommend that ARC use its 

application process to promote a more operative 

definition of project sustainability for its 

telecommunications projects. For example, 

applicants might be directed to describe their 

plans for sustaining the training and technical 

assistance components of their projects beyond 

the ARC grant. ARC project coordinators might 

then use the review process to assess whether 

projects have adequately considered the range of 

strategies that might be used to maintain the 

86 
functional elements of their proposed approach. 

This would reinforce the need for projects to 

develop realistic strategies for addressing the 

long-term technical assistance and training needs 

of end users. (This is especially important in 

rural communities where end users might 

otherwise lack the skills and resources to maintain 

and fix their computer equipment after the ARC 

grant has ended.) It would also maximize the 

likelihood that projects put in place a plan for 

assuring that end users continue to have access to 

new and emerging technologies over time. 

87 

Appendix A 

Summary of Case Study Findings 

A-1 
Appendix A 

Summary of Case Study Findings 

Although surveys can be used to obtain basic 

information about the extent to which projects 

were implemented, site visits generally allow for 

a more indepth understanding how and why

projects evolved over time. For example, it is 

unlikely that a survey would reveal that a 

project’s success occurred as a result of a 

combination of factors—e.g., aggressive 

promotion of services, targeted training, 

community buy-in, and strong technical expertise. 

Nor would a survey allow for a comprehensive 

understanding of the external factors—such as the 

economic and political characteristics of the 

participating communities—that contributed to 

the success or failure of a given project. 

The site visits were therefore designed to allow 

for a more detailed examination of successful 

ARC-funded telecommunications projects—with 

an emphasis on gaining a deeper understanding of 

how the projects were implemented, outcomes 

that occurred as a result of ARC funding, and the 

range of lessons learned by project staff. 

Information obtained through the 16 site visits 

was summarized in a series of structured case 

study notes. In addition, specific findings are 

used in this appendix and throughout the final 

report to illuminate issues of interest to ARC and 

other stakeholders. 

This appendix summarizes findings and lessons 

learned from the site visits. It also provides an 

overview of the methodology used to select the 

site visit sample and a description of the 16 case 

study sites. 

CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

The case studies were designed to collect indepth 

information from a range of ARC 

telecommunications projects that might be of 

interest to future grant recipients. One of our 

principal criteria for selecting these sites was the 

use of a compelling or innovative strategy to 

solving a problem commonly faced by rural 

communities. We therefore attempted to select 

projects that appeared to have undertaken an 

approach that went beyond simply providing 

access to businesses and residents. In addition, 

we looked for projects that were either addressing 

interesting problems or had developed content 

that would be useful in other communities and 

might warrant replication. 

Because the case study sites were selected after 

the telephone survey of all 70 sites had been 

conducted, we were able to use information from

both the ARC database and the telephone survey

to identify potential projects for the case studies. 

As a first cut, the following criteria were used to 

narrow the pool of projects considered for the site 

visits: 

Projects had to indicate that they were still be 

in operation (full, partial, or changed) at the 

time of the telephone survey (February 2002). 

Five projects failed to meet this criterion. 

• 

• 

• 

Projects had to have received a substantial 

portion of funding from ARC. Twenty-eight 

projects were excluded from consideration for 

the site visits because (1) they received 

$15,000 or less in ARC funding, and/or (2) 

less than 40 percent of their total project cost 

came from ARC funding. 

Projects had to indicate on the telephone 

survey that they would not have been fully

implemented without the ARC grant. Two 

projects failed to meet this criterion. 

Survey data for the 42 (of 70) projects that met 

these criteria were then used to further narrow the 

pool of site visit candidates. Specifically, an 

effort was made to: 

A-2 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Select projects with multiple ARC-funded 

activities; 

Exclude projects that were identified as 

problematic by the Westat interviewers who 

conducted the telephone survey (e.g., because 

the original project director was no longer 

available); 

Select projects that were implementing an 

innovative approach that other sites might 

replicate or adapt; 

Exclude projects that appeared to be relying 

on conventional approaches—e.g.,

establishing Internet access sites in public 

libraries; 

Select projects with multiple goals; 

Select projects that appeared to have 

expanded—e.g., reported on the telephone 

survey that they were serving more 

participants than originally envisioned, or 

providing a service not delineated in the 

original ARC proposal; and 

Exclude projects that were especially

unsuccessful—e.g., those that achieved all 

goals less than expected, proposed activities 

that were never implemented, encountered 

many obstacles/barriers, were reduced in 

scope, and/or cited many factors responsible 

for the project being reduced in scope. 

Finally, information from the telephone survey

and ARC database were used to select case study

sites were at least somewhat reflective of the 

overall study sample. Specifically, an attempt 

was made to: 

Select projects in those states that had 

received the greatest proportion of ARC 

telecommunications funding; 

Distribute projects across type of grant 

recipient organization and sectors served; and 

Distribute projects across project types (e.g., 

distance learning, telecommunications 

acquisition and training, planning, ecommerce, etc.). 

As shown in exhibit A-1 (at the end of this 

appendix), 7 of the 16 case study sites were 

primarily designed to enhance residents’ access to 

information infrastructure, while 5 were designed 

to promote education, training, and workforce 

development. Almost half (7) of the 16 case 

study grant recipients were educational 

organizations, while 4 were government agencies. 

In addition, half (8) of the case study sites were 

designed to provide services in multiple counties, 

while 3 were designed to provide services in a 

single county.

Once the case study sample had been selected, 

site visitors spent 2 days at each of the 16 sites. 

During these visits, site visitors met with the 

project director, other key staff, project partners, 

and a sample of end users. In many sites, we also 

had an opportunity to observe a demonstration of 

how new technologies were being used by

workers and community residents. The resulting 

case study notes were used to address the 

following types of issues: 

What specific problems were the projects 

designed to address? 

What technical approaches did the projects 

use to ameliorate these problems? 

What steps were taken to involve 

stakeholders and end users in the planning 

and implementation of the projects? To 

inform end users about the project-related 

activities? 

What steps were taken to provide end users 

with training and technical assistance? 

What impact did the projects have on the way

in which services were delivered or accessed?

On the overall community? 

A-3 
Exhibit A-1: Characteristics of case study sites 

Characteristics

Project name Grant 

recipient type1

Geographic 

distribution1 

Current project 

status1

Total ARC 

funding 

amount2 

Total 

matching 

funds2 

Access to Information Infrastructure 

Big Sandy Telecommunications 

Center (Pikeville, KY) 

Community or 

social services

organization 

A single county In operation, 

same function $553,530 $551,576

Golden Triangle 

Telecommunications Network 

System (Starkville, MS) 

Government 

organization 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

In operation, 

same function $254,173 $63,543 

Medical and Government 

Internet Coalition Network 

(MAGICnet) (Athens, OH) 

Educational 

organization Other In operation, 

same function $77,167 $149,168 

SEDA-COG Info-Structure 

Technology Assistance Center 

(Lewisburg, PA) 

Government 

organization 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $200,000 $200,000 

Southern Tier Central 

Telecommunications Initiative 

(Painted Post, NY) 

Government 

organization 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $97,219 $31,847 

Sunday Creek Associates/ARC 

Managing Information with 

Rural America (Shawnee, OH) 

Community or 

social services

organization 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

$100,000 $120,000

Tompkins County Collaborative 

Communications (Ithaca, NY) 

Other organization 

type A single county

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $95,000 $95,053 

Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Alleghany High School Cyber 

Campus (Sparta, NC) 

Educational 

organization 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $100,000 $112,168 

Grant Career Center 

Conference/Computer Center 

(Bethel, OH) 

Educational 

organization 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

In operation, 

same function $146,015 $208,955 

Jackson County Distance 

Learning (Scottsboro, AL) 

Educational 

organization A single county

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $399,000 $249,600

Jefferson Community College 

Computer Labs (Steubenville, 

OH) 

Educational 

organization 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $198,300 $198,300 

RESA Regional 

Telecommunication Special 

Initiative (Cumberland, MD) 

Educational 

organization 

All ARC counties 

within a single state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $445,917 $114,183 

E-Commerce Readiness/Tech Sector Employment 

Advantage Valley (Huntington, 

WV) 

Educational 

organization Other 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $209,000 $592,049 

SC-Upstate-Info (SCUI) 

(Greenville, SC) 

Government 

organization 

All ARC counties 

within a single state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

$420,000 $180,000

PA SourceNet (Lewisburg, PA) Other organization 

type 

All ARC counties 

within a single state 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

$1,293,00

0 

$1,272,00

0

Technology 2020 (Oak Ridge, 

TN) 

Other organization 

type 

In operation, 

expanded 

function 

 $203,000 $204,000 

2 or more but not 

all ARC counties in 

state 

1

Westat telephone survey of ARC telecommunications projects. 

2

ARC database.

A-4 
What problems did projects encounter—and 

what steps did projects take to overcome 

these obstacles? 

• 

• 

• 

What approaches did projects use—or 

propose to use—to sustain themselves beyond 

the ARC grant period? 

What lessons did projects learn that could be 

passed on to other ARC projects? 

SUMMARY OF SITE VISIT FINDINGS

The site visits provided the study team an 

opportunity to more thoroughly assess the 

implementation and impact of 16 ARC 

telecommunications projects. They also enabled 

us to document the environment in which these 

efforts occurred and the obstacles that had to be 

overcome. While these projects implemented 

different approaches—and had to navigate a 

unique combination of circumstances—we were 

able to draw some common insights across these 

16 sites. This section aims to illustrate, by way of 

the case studies, the range of practices and 

problems that characterized the

telecommunications projects that we visited. 

Project Context 

Some of the projects were located in 

economically distressed regions of Appalachia, 

while others were in more economically

progressive areas, or in areas with both distressed 

and nondistressed counties. The relative lack of 

resources available in poorer areas served as an 

additional challenge to telecommunications 

projects, since they often had to rely on 

community support for their maintenance and 

continued operation. For instance, many of the 

case study projects had to exert considerable 

effort to locate and secure ongoing funding, much 

of which came from local sources. 

Most of the case study sites were in rural areas, 

where physical isolation continues to hinder 

access to infrastructure. The lack of established 

infrastructure (e.g., inadequate broadband, dearth 

of Internet service providers) was an obstacle that 

detracted several projects from their initial 

mission. Projects located in rural areas were 

therefore faced with challenges particular to their 

environment. However, it should be noted that 

for some communities, this geographical isolation 

was actually the impetus for devising a 

technology-based solution. As such, several of 

the rural projects we visited made use of 

telecommunications technology to overcome their 

isolation by way of videoconferencing, ecommerce, and expanding community access to 

the Internet. It is not surprising that so many

rural projects indicated that telecommunications 

technologies were viewed as a shining hope with 

the potential to revolutionize and revitalize 

physically isolated communities. 

Many of the case study sites appeared ready to 

embrace telecommunications technology, at least 

in spirit. As a result, projects were generally able 

to establish partnerships with community

organizations based on its promise. This ability

to generate networks within communities is a 

testament to the ability of telecommunications 

projects to facilitate new communication between 

businesses, educators, and offices of governance 

and social service. However, some technology

applications were at least initially hindered by

well-established attitudes and habits, and 

resistance to change was not uncommon in the 16 

communities we visited. For example, many

individuals were apprehensive about working 

with, teaching, learning about, or using the new 

tools of telecommunications technology. Such 

resistance was often overcome by a display of the 

utility and value of the technologies that ARC 

supported. 

Project Implementation 

The case study projects were diverse in their 

design and intent, but shared certain features. 

First, most aimed to make available and/or 

employ telecommunications infrastructure and 

applied technologies in order to make 

communication and the transfer of information 

more efficient for the purposes of business, 

education, social service (e.g., health), and/or 

governance. Sixteen of the 70 projects in the 

study sample were selected for intensive visits. 

The case study sites conducted a wide range of 

telecommunications-related activities, including 

the purchase and installation or upgrade of 

A-5 
equipment and facilities; networking 

organizations and offices, technical assistance and 

consulting, web site design, and marketing. 

Project equipment (much of which was purchased 

with ARC funds) included computers, monitors, 

scanners, printers, V-Tel technology, 

videoconferencing equipment, audio equipment, 

cameras, microphones, T1 and 64 K lines, 

projectors, servers, and software. For many

project staff members, exposure to the task of 

selecting, purchasing, and managing the 

installation, use, and maintenance of equipment 

was a profound introduction and education to the 

world of telecommunications technology. 

In addition to increasing telecommunications 

infrastructure and access, most of the projects 

emphasized training individuals to make effective 

use of these technologies. Training activities 

varied in substance, scope, and level (e.g., 

introductory versus more advanced). In a few 

cases, efforts were made to reinforce the 

knowledge acquired in training (e.g., by offering 

follow-up training, integrating knowledge into 

real-world contexts, or providing written 

materials for later reference). However, case 

study findings suggest that in a number of sites, 

knowledge acquired through such training was 

not reinforced—and the utilization of any

knowledge gained through the training was 

therefore limited. 

The 16 projects undertook a variety of efforts to 

involve and engage their various stakeholders. 

Sites often noted that stakeholders’ involvement 

was important for gaining project buy-in within 

the community, as well as for gathering feedback 

on project development and design. Projects 

generally identified three primary strategies for 

involving stakeholders: establishing (or taking 

advantage of existing) advisory boards, holding 

regular project meetings, and conducting formal 

or informal needs assessments among prospective 

end users. Findings from the site visits suggest 

that stakeholder and end user buy-in was 

generally a critical component of successful 

technology projects. Among the projects we 

visited, the most successful appeared to have 

involved community stakeholders in their design 

and development phases. This inclusive approach 

contributed to technology initiatives that met the 

needs of (and were therefore used by) their 

intended beneficiaries. Conversely, projects that 

failed to involve stakeholders and end users often 

found themselves struggling to gain community

support for their overall approach. 

Project Impact 

Case study findings suggest that increased access 

to telecommunications technologies resulted in a 

wide range of tangible and intangible impacts. 

These include the creation of new partnerships in 

communities, the pooling of resources, 

questioning of outdated ways of doing things, and 

speculation about potential innovative approaches 

for improving conditions in a variety of public 

and private settings. Respondents in most sites 

made clear that project staff, beneficiaries, and 

community members were exposed to 

technologies that served as a catalyst for 

provoking consideration of how existing practices 

might be advanced. It is this new paradigm of 

shared knowledge and awareness that may

ultimately help propel communities in Appalachia 

toward a lifting of the digital divide. 

ARC telecommunications grants serve not only

the purpose of educating communities, but also 

help to prove to skeptics the utility and 

importance of improved telecommunications 

technologies. In many of the case studies, it was 

found that projects were able to dispel doubt and 

make believers of key decision-makers, paving 

the way for future funding and further 

partnerships. Also, many of these case studies 

would not have gotten off of the ground were it 

not for an ARC grant. In this sense, many ARC 

grants serve as a springboard for future funding 

and expansion. 

It is also important to note that in many cases, the 

ARC grant period was primarily used to lay the 

foundation for longer term telecommunications 

advances. As such, the benefits that sites reported 

might not take into account other substantive 

gains that will accrue over time. Nonetheless, 

qualitative findings from the case study sites 

highlight several ways in which projects 

A-6 
improved the quality of life in participating 

communities. First, the projects imported 

equipment and infrastructure into communities 

that had been adversely affected by the digital 

divide. This infusion of new telecommunications 

technology improved the flow of information 

within and across businesses, educational 

institutions, and governing offices. It also 

benefited individuals and organizations in many

specific ways, such as making classes available 

through distance learning, promoting education 

through access to the Internet and specialized 

software, supporting workforce training, and 

increasing productivity in the workplace. 

Measurement of Project Performance 

While case study findings suggest that ARC’s 

telecommunications projects were generally

successful, evidence of the resulting community

benefits were not readily available by way of the 

Commission’s system for monitoring and 

documenting project performance. This may

have been due in part to ARC’s place on the 

performance measurement implementation curve 

– many of ARC’s telecommunications projects 

began before 1998, the year in which GPRA 

began to exert its influence on ARC’s application 

and reporting requirements. 

Our review of telecommunications proposals and 

final reports suggest that the measurement system

was lacking in three important ways. First, many

of the statements regarding anticipated 

accomplishments (in both the proposals and the 

ARC memorandum) were actually outputs—i.e., 

statements involving process and activities—as 

opposed to outcomes. While outputs are an 

important aspect of project performance 

measurement, outcomes more directly reflect 

project impact and achievement. Second, while 

most of the proposals we reviewed contained at 

least one outcome statement, too often these were 

vague, not easily measurable, and not associated 

with a numeric benchmark. Third, most of the 

projects we visited did not invest adequate time or 

effort documenting the benefits associated with 

their efforts. 

Implementation Barriers 

The sites we visited, while largely successful, 

encountered and addressed a number of 

challenging obstacles. Some of these problems 

were experienced by a majority of projects (e.g., 

delays due to worse-than-anticipated technology

infrastructures); others were unique to a given 

approach or locality. Understanding the 

dynamics of these problems is instructive, since 

they offer insights into the range of issues that 

future telecommunications projects can expect to 

encounter. The following provides summary

information about the most prominent barriers 

encountered by the 16 case study sites: 

 

• Lack of technology infrastructure. A

significant barrier for some of the case study

sites was the time, cost, and effort required to 

develop the infrastructures that supported 

their technological efforts. Many of the 

projects indicated that their communities’

existing physical and telecommunications 

infrastructures were either nonexistent or 

incompatible. These problems, which were 

sometimes discovered after a project had 

been initiated, commonly resulted in 

excessive fees and extensive delays. Some

projects were forced to delay operations until 

the requisite information infrastructure had 

been put in place. 

• Keeping pace with evolving technologies. 

Some case study projects reported that 

concerns about unanticipated technological 

advances (and the ensuing obsolescence of 

ARC-purchased computers) made it difficult 

to develop long-term budgets for 

telecommunications equipment. 

• Keeping pace with end users’ evolving 

needs. One project director indicated that 

several of the partner agencies participating in 

his ARC project had severely underestimated 

the number of staff who would use computers 

and require Internet access. In addition, as 

the project evolved, end users were making 

more advanced use of the Internet (e.g., using 

computers to share mug shots with the 

region’s police departments—which require 

A-7 
greater bandwidth capacity to facilitate 

downloading) than had originally been 

envisioned at the outset of the project.

• Underutilization of project technology. 

Some case study sites reported that the 

technologies they made available were not 

fully utilized by end users. This problem was 

especially prevalent among projects that 

purchased videoconferencing equipment. 

Several factors contributed to the 

underutilization of this equipment—e.g., a 

failure to more fully assess end users’ interest 

in making frequent use of videoconferencing 

equipment, improved availability over time to 

videoconferencing equipment, a lack of 

promotion to inform potential beneficiaries of 

videoconferencing capabilities. 

• Underestimating the time required to 

implement project activities. Almost all of

the case study projects indicated that they

underestimated the amount of time 

implementation tasks would require, 

particularly with regard to technology. 

Projects that involved the installation of 

equipment were especially vulnerable to 

delays in their proposed schedule. This is 

because such projects were often required to 

rely on external entities to provide equipment 

or carry out other technical functions. 

• Staff turnover. Another common problem

faced by case study projects was a change in 

or loss of key personnel. In some cases, staff 

members with strong technical skills were 

lured away by organizations that offered 

higher paying positions. As a result, some

sites had insufficient technical expertise when 

faced with the need to resolve unexpected 

problems such as equipment failure or repair. 

• Lack of technical expertise among project 

staff. In addition to encountering difficulties 

in retaining knowledgeable and skilled staff, 

several projects found it difficult to recruit 

staff with the range of skills needed to lead or 

implement their efforts. For example, several 

projects reported that after they had 

purchased equipment, they lacked reliable 

access to staff capable of resolving 

unexpected problems such as equipment 

failure or repair. 

• Problems with equipment vendors. The 

most prominent communication problems 

uncovered during the site visits involved 

interactions with external service providers 

and venders. In some cases, these problems 

arose because project staff lacked the 

experience and expertise to anticipate the 

types of technical issues they were called 

upon to navigate as they purchased 

telecommunications equipment. 

• Lack of a comprehensive training agenda. 

The case studies uncovered evidence that 

several of the projects failed to set aside 

sufficient time and resources for training. In 

cases where instructional support was 

terminated at the end of the ARC grant, end 

users expressed concern that although they

had learned some important introductory

skills, they had not learned how to fully

integrate those skills into their daily work 

routine. 

• Lack of a comprehensive marketing 

strategy. A few of the case study sites did 

not anticipate the amount of marketing that 

would be needed to ensure that potential end 

users would be informed of project-related 

activities or services. For example, one 

project opened a series of computer labs with 

little or no fanfare. In hindsight, the staff 

indicated that they should have campaigned 

more vigorously to promote the labs prior to 

and immediately following their opening. 

BEST PRACTICES OF 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECTS

 

During each of the site visits, we asked 

respondents to summarize the lessons that they

had learned as a result of their efforts to 

implement their technology projects. In asking 

this question, we tried to get respondents to share 

any practical advice they would proffer to other 

grant recipients looking to develop a similar 

A-8 
approach. What follows, therefore, is our effort 

to identify some broader practices that future 

grant recipients—regardless of their location, 

project type, or application area—can use to 

overcome common barriers and develop 

sustainable telecommunications solutions. 

Conduct a Thorough Needs Assessment and 

Feasibility Study. Just as a lack of planning 

often resulted in a range of problems, attention to 

planning often resulted in projects that remained 

focused on addressing a tangible goal. Several 

case study respondents indicated that their frontend assessments of end users’ needs resulted in 

the development of project activities that were 

appropriately utilized by the intended range of 

end users. These assessments also served to 

systematically expose community members and 

potential stakeholders/partners to a project’s

proposed aims and activities, thereby increasing 

community involvement and support. The use of 

a needs assessment also helped some projects 

avoid purchasing equipment simply because 

funds were available or because “everyone else 

already had it.” 

Case study respondents also recommended that 

future projects formally assess their infrastructure 

and staff expertise before purchasing and 

installing equipment. For example, projects 

recommended that feasibility studies be used to: 

• Evaluate the existing infrastructure and 

identify any changes that should be made to 

facilities (in advance of a purchase) to 

accommodate new equipment; 

• Consider how long projects expect their 

equipment to last (or stay current); 

• Anticipate equipment obsolescence when 

developing long-term telecommunications 

budgets; 

• Assess whether existing staff (or those 

appointed by them) possess the technical 

expertise required to install and operate the 

equipment; and 

• Review potential vendors’ history and 

references to see if any have a history of 

problems, e.g., delays acquiring equipment. 

Provide End Users with Targeted and Ongoing 

Training. Enhancing access to 

telecommunications applications is an important 

project goal. However, end users must possess 

the requisite knowledge if they are to take full 

and appropriate advantage of these new 

technologies. As such, projects emphasized the 

importance of providing individuals with 

adequate access to training in how to operate new 

hardware and software. However, while most 

projects provided training as part of their 

activities, few did so as extensively as needed. In 

hindsight, several respondents indicated that their 

training would have been more effective if 

sessions had been tailored to the characteristics, 

skills, and needs of specific end users. Further, 

they recommended that future projects reinforce 

their technology training by (1) integrating 

learning into real-life contexts (e.g., in the 

workplace), (2) making written materials 

available, and (3) pointing out or facilitating 

future training possibilities. Several of the end 

users we interviewed indicated that single training 

sessions were ineffective. As such, they

recommended that whenever possible, follow-up 

training should be offered on more advanced 

topics. 

Promote Utilization of Technology Services 

among the Range of Intended End Users. 

Successful telecommunications projects are able 

to make their services visible and attractive to as 

many potential end users as possible. Even the 

best designed and well-implemented project will 

fall short if services are underutilized because of a 

lack of promotion. While the marketing approach 

employed depends on the nature and scope of the 

specific project, successful ARC 

telecommunications projects tended to make use 

of multiple concurrent forums to promote their 

services—including web sites, newspapers and 

magazines, local television stations or cable 

access stations, radio, newsletters, flyers, direct 

calls, demonstrations, and billboards. 

 

A-9 
Build and Maintain Buy-In of Community 

Members and Partners. Generating community

buy-in is critical for project success, especially in 

poorer communities with limited resources. The 

case studies gave evidence for the importance of 

such support, where organizations within 

communities provided projects with various 

donations (e.g., computers, network connections, 

servers, software) or other services (i.e., training, 

staff support). 

In addition, many of the successful case study

projects were able to establish strong partnerships 

within their communities. Such partnerships 

allowed for increased and coordinated negotiating 

and purchasing power. They also opened new 

opportunities for growth in business and 

education, increased cooperation and 

collaboration among providers and beneficiaries, 

and facilitated the dissemination of knowledge 

about the potential of telecommunications 

technologies. 

Be Ready to Adapt to Changing 

Circumstances and Seize Opportunities. The 

most effective telecommunications projects are 

those that are able to locate and coordinate the 

best of available resources, those that are flexible 

and can adapt to changing circumstances, and 

those that seize new opportunities in a timely

way. Locating the necessary resources was often 

a function of solid project promotion, avid 

networking with stakeholders and community

members, and knowledge of new and emerging 

technologies. Given the unpredictable and novel 

nature of telecommunications technology, 

projects indicated that they also had to be ready to 

alter their course, modify goals, overcome 

technical obstacles, and work with a constant 

learning curve. Such nimbleness was essential, 

since time was often a critical factor in 

conducting project activities. 

 

Projects also sustained themselves by seizing 

opportunities for expansion, new partnerships, 

and further funding. Respondents indicated that 

they had to be continuously alert to possibilities 

for development and change. In the spirit of 

ongoing, rapid technological change, successful 

telecommunications projects were often those that 

risked innovation and reached out beyond 

established and tested practices. 

A-10 
PA SourceNet 

Project Location: Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 

Grant Recipient: Susquehanna Economic Development Association-Council of 

Governments (SEDA-COG) 

ARC Number: PA 11568 

Project Type: E-Commerce Readiness/Technology Sector Job Creation 

Total ARC Funding: $1,293,000 

Total Matching Funds: $1,272,000

Date of Site Visit: May 7, 2002 

Site Visitor: Glenn Nyre and John Wells 

The PA SourceNet project was designed to assist Pennsylvania businesses (especially those in the 

Susquehanna area of central Pennsylvania) in marketing their products on a state, national, and 

international basis. It involved the upgrade of the Manufacturing Marketing Network (M-Net), a database 

network, into an Internet software-based program, which was renamed PA SourceNet. M-Net had been 

assisting businesses in locating in-state customers for their products and finding reliable leads for 

marketing products both within and outside the state. 

PA SourceNet allows anyone to search for Pennsylvania businesses using a variety of methods and allows 

companies to search for potential suppliers, distributors, and customers. Pennsylvania companies register 

with PA SourceNet over the Internet, provide general information about themselves, and then list what 

they sell and what they buy, thereby creating links between companies in the state and other companies 

both within the state and beyond. ARC funds were used to pay for the staff, equipment, and software 

licenses needed to develop and maintain the PA SourceNet site, and to provide training to staff, who 

helped the user businesses learn how to navigate the Internet and establish web pages. 

Indications are that PA SourceNet has assisted Pennsylvania businesses in marketing their products. 

While project staff are no longer able to track successful sales transactions, the site is highly utilized by

both Pennsylvania businesses and potential customers/suppliers, maintaining a significant number of 

unique users each month. 

PA SourceNet has served as a model for other communities and regions seeking to develop their local 

economies. It is an engine that can be used to drive specific industries or as a general business assistance 

model. The project also has been successfully replicated within specific industries in Pennsylvania and at 

the state level. 

A-11
Info-Structure Technology Assistance Center (ITAC) 

Project Location: Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 

Grant Recipient: Susquehanna Economic Development Association-Council of 

Governments (SEDA-COG) 

ARC Number: PA 12737 

Project Type: Access to Infrastructure 

Total ARC Funding: $200,000 

Total Matching Funds: $200,000 

Date of Site Visit: May 8, 2002

Site Visitor: Glenn Nyre and John Wells

ITAC sought to increase the impact of local county tax dollar investments in information management 

technologies. County and local governments in the central Pennsylvania region have lagged behind many

other areas with respect to access to telecommunications and the Internet, and therefore have not been 

able to benefit from the availability and use of these technologies. ITAC took significant steps to 

strengthen the region’s information structure by developing and maintaining regional coordination of 

technology and bringing to the forefront a focus on integrated community networks. The project replaced 

existing manual or obsolete automated systems with the latest technology systems in order to assure selfsufficient, rapid integrated access to data essential for daily government operations. 

The project provided basic and advanced telecommunications services, including access to e-mail, the 

Internet, word processing, and database services, which previously had either not been available or had 

been available only on a very limited basis. The purpose of providing these capabilities was to allow 

government personnel to perform their duties in a more effective and efficient manner, and to coordinate 

communications between various government entities, such as police and fire departments and the courts, 

or between government agencies and the residents they serve. 

The ITAC project has made government operations and other public functions in the region it serves more 

technology-based and, as a result, more cost-efficient. For example, it helped streamline the process of 

property reassessment in Perry County by implementing an automated system for assessing property

values, receiving resident feedback, and demonstrating how the new values were devised. 

ITAC also provided Internet access to public employees in several localities in a more cost-efficient 

manner or, in some cases, for the first time ever. The project was also the impetus for SusquaNet, which 

connected 25 school districts in four of the counties being served. Finally, ITAC also introduced the 

concept of videoconferencing to several localities, which has been utilized to the largest extent by the 

courts and has greatly reduced administrative costs. 

A-12 
Jackson County Distance Learning 

Project Location: Scottsboro, Alabama 

Grant Recipient: 21st Century Council – IMPACT Learning Center 

ARC Number: AL 13086 

Project Type: Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Total ARC Funding: $399,000 

Total Matching Funds: $249,600

Date of Site Visit: May 21-22, 2002

Site Visitor: John Wells 

 

The Distance Learning Project engages in a wide range of activities that are aimed at several different 

sectors of the city of Scottsboro as well as the surrounding portion of Jackson County. While most of the 

project’s activities are affiliated with the local schools or are otherwise education-based, the project also 

serves the overall community, in addition to the government, health care, and private sectors. 

While the project has installed distance learning equipment in several schools and other locations, the 

project is centered at the Impact Learning Center, an adult education and community center that offers a 

wide variety of programs. These are conducted on a daily basis and are designed to help adults gain the 

desired skills (academic, technical, and interpersonal) needed to be productive members of the workforce. 

The distance learning equipment that was acquired as a result of the ARC grant is the primary tool for 

delivering the aforementioned programs and services. 

Generally speaking, Scottsboro residents feel somewhat isolated from the world around them. Jackson 

County is one of the largest counties in Alabama in terms of square miles and has a widely dispersed 

population. This makes it difficult for residents to communicate with others and for the county and city to 

deliver many basic services. Scottsboro is also nearly 100 miles away from any major metropolitan area, 

such as Huntsville or Birmingham, which makes it difficult for residents to gain access to such 

opportunities as higher education. 

The Jackson County Distance Learning project has diminished this sense of isolation. Through the use of 

distance learning equipment, graduate and undergraduate students can pursue degrees via distance 

education from major universities, and professional development workshops can be offered to greater 

numbers of local teachers. Moreover, large numbers of community members can participate in health 

seminars that originate from the University of Alabama Medical Center or other major hospitals and 

health care centers, and teachers can introduce new subject areas and curriculum resources to students that 

are customarily offered to students in areas with greater resources. Finally, government representatives 

can communicate with their constituents (and vice versa) more easily. 

A-13 
Grant Career Center Conference/Computer Center 

Project Location: Bethel, Ohio 

Grant Recipient: U.S. Grant Joint Vocational School District/Grant Career Center 

ARC Number: OH 12571 

Project Type: Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Total ARC Funding: $146, 015 

Total Matching Funds: $106,491 (state); $102,464 (local) 

Date of Site Visit: June 27-28, 2002 

Site Visitor: John Wells 

This project was designed to help bring about higher rates of employment and educational attainment as 

well as to provide students increased access to technology and telecommunications equipment that is 

either in short supply or absent in Clermont County. Since the Grant Career Center is both a vocational 

high school as well as a learning center for adults, one of its main goals was to provide people with 

specific job skills that will help them seek immediate employment in the local Clermont County area. 

This project consisted of two major activities: the establishment of a video teleconferencing center and 

the establishment of a computer center, both of which are housed within the Grant Career Center. These 

facilities were designed to meet the basic needs of those first entering the labor market as well as the 

continuing education needs so vital to the continuing growth and development of current employees and 

the companies that employ them. 

Since the grant recipient is a vocational high school and adult learning center, the primary goal of this 

project was to provide students the knowledge and skills necessary to obtain employment and to succeed 

in such positions. The most important outcome was the high rate of employment among those who have 

graduated from the program. Over the past several years, the placement rate, or percentage of graduates 

who secure full-time employment, has been steadily increasing. Between the 1997-98 and 2000-01 school 

years, between 80 and 100 percent of graduates obtained full-time employment. 

A-14 
Regional Educational Service Agency (RESA) – Regional Telecommunications Special Initiative 

Project Location: Cumberland, Maryland 

Grant Recipient: Regional Educational Service Agency of Appalachian Maryland 

ARC Number: MD 12354 

Project Type: Access to Infrastructure 

Total ARC Funding: $445,917 

Total Matching Funds: $114,183 

Date of Site Visit: June 20-21, 2002 

Site Visitor: John Wells 

This project was designed to address the traditional disparities in access to telecommunications 

technology that occur in rural or underdeveloped areas. Although the project engaged in a wide variety of 

approaches in dealing with these disparities, much emphasis and significant resources were devoted to 

higher education institutions, namely, Allegany College and Frostburg State University. 

The most recent activity of this project was the establishment and operation of a help desk at Frostburg 

State University. This help desk was staffed mainly by interns (all of whom are students at Frostburg 

State), who provide basic computer assistance to students, faculty, and administration. Student interns 

from Frostburg State also developed web pages for various businesses, organizations, government 

agencies, and other entities in the western Maryland region. 

In earlier stages of the project, ARC funds were used for equipment and technical assistance to be 

provided to local school systems, government agencies and institutions, and higher education institutions 

to develop or increase telecommunications capacity. Most of these efforts were carried out in the mid1990s when Internet access and other technologies were being used primarily in higher income, heavily

populated areas of the state and the country. These efforts provided both Frostburg State University and 

Allegany College with their first Internet capabilities. 

This project has greatly increased the presence of computers and telecommunications technology in 

government and public offices, local institutions of higher learning, as well as elementary and secondary

schools in western Maryland. Although the ARC funds did not pay for every computer or every piece of 

equipment that is currently utilized, they did provide an important building block on which these entities 

could elaborate and enhance. 

A-15 
Alleghany High School Cyber Campus 

Project Location: Sparta, North Carolina 

Grant Recipient: Alleghany County

ARC Number: NC 13075

Project Type: Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Total ARC Funding: $100,000

Total Matching Funds: $112,168 

Date of Site Visit: May 15-16, 2002 

Site Visitors: Brian Kleiner and Kimberley Raue 

The Alleghany High School Cyber Campus is one of seven cyber campuses developed across the state of 

North Carolina as part of an effort to improve the educational opportunities available to students and 

teachers in rural, remote, and underserved areas. The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics 

plays a integral role in the cyber campus system, with the North Carolina Information Highway (NCIH) 

serving as the primary infrastructure for broadband connectivity. 

The Alleghany High School Cyber Campus has bridged an educational and technological divide, bringing 

resources and educational opportunities into Alleghany County. Students are exposed to challenging 

content through enrichment lessons. They can earn college credit while still in high school, and they are 

learning valuable computer skills that will prove advantageous in the course of their careers. Teachers 

participate in professional development opportunities and master’s degree programs offered through the 

cyber campus, and collaborate with other teaching professionals in their discipline. 

Learning opportunities have also been extended to members of the community through the cyber 

campus’s computer lab. Some members of the community are using e-mail for the first time and taking 

classes on computer and Internet basics, which are taught by interns from the cyber campus. They have 

access to various software packages, including software directed toward people earning their GED or 

learning English as a Second Language. 

A-16 
Medical and Government Internet Coalition Network (MAGICnet) 

Project Location: Athens, Ohio 

Grant Recipient: Ohio University

ARC Number: OH 12590

Project Type: Access to Infrastructure 

Total ARC Funding: $77,167

Total Matching Funds: $149,168 

Date of Site Visit: June 9-11, 2002 

Site Visitor: Kimberley Raue

The primary goal of the Medical and Government Internet Coalition Network (MAGICnet) was to 

provide rural physicians and government officials access to “local services, state resources, and global 

connectivity” through the Internet. Toward this end, Ohio University’s College of Osteopathic Medicine 

(COM) and Institute for Local Government Administration and Rural Development (ILGARD) provided 

project participants with hardware, software, training, implementation assistance, and 1 year’s worth of 

Internet access. COM and ILGARD also assisted local Internet service providers (ISPs) in expanding 

their service to underserved areas of southeast Ohio. 

Project participants have taken advantage of the capacity-building opportunities made possible through 

the MAGICnet project. Sites have been able to institute computerized billing systems, saving time and 

money. Internet access has provided sites with access to a wealth of information, such as inter-library loan 

services for physicians and federal and state grant opportunities for government sites. Members of the 

community have received better service as a result. Physicians can access patient education materials 

online and print and disseminate them to their patients. Government officials can provide services in a 

more timely manner and can use technology to gain information which makes their grant applications 

more competitive. The ISP situation has changed dramatically as well, with more competing ISPs and 

choices for service. 

Recognizing the impact of technology, many sites have taken the initiative to upgrade their equipment 

and expand their vision of how they can use technology. As an example, some local governments have 

expressed an interest in learning Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which can be used for resource 

management and community planning and development. 

A-17 
Technology 2020 

Project Location: Oak Ridge, TN 

Grant Recipient: Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce 

ARC Number: TN 12106

Project Type: E-Commerce Readiness/Technology Sector Job Creation 

Total ARC Funding: $203,000

Total Matching Funds: $204,000 

Date of Site Visit: April 7, 2002 

Site Visitor: Carl Setzer 

Technology 2020 had the goal of providing incentives to local scientists, researchers, and engineers (who 

were seeing a decrease in federal funding) to stay in the region. To accomplish this goal, a small business 

incubator program was established to provide local area scientists, researchers, and engineers with an 

opportunity to become entrepreneurs themselves. Technology 2020 also wanted to use its facility to 

provide demonstrations on the uses and abilities of e-commerce in today’s markets, as well as to 

demonstrate the opportunities that the Internet could provide in education. Technology 2020 set up 

facilities for meetings and seminars that included videoconferencing and other presentation materials. 

Businesses are able to utilize these facilities to make presentations or for other purposes. A training center 

was developed to show local educators the benefits technology can bring into the classroom. However, 

this training center was later discontinued, and the local community college took over the initiative. 

Technology 2020 is no longer involved and feels the community college is more adept in handling the 

project. 

Since the beginning of the Technology 2020 project 88 start-up companies have been launched out of the 

Technology 2020 SBDC program. Of these 88 companies, 16 are now defunct (of the 88 companies, 29 

had not reported data as of the site visit). The initial 197 jobs created by these companies has grown to 

515 jobs. The ARC grant was used to subsidize operational costs to the facility. As a result of a broader 

focus, Technology 2020 is now the umbrella company for 5 new organizations: Southeast Community

Capital, Center for Entrepreneurial Growth, Digital Crossing, TennesSeedFund1, and the East Tennessee 

Technology Council. These organizations work in conjunction to maintain the entrepreneurial spirit in the 

area of technology. 

Early in the project, Technology 2020 was also able to implement a regional Internet traffic exchange 

(RITE), which helps to provide better service to the ISP customers. Another early accomplishment of the 

project was the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) network established between the University of 

Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Technology 2020. This network provided a better 

infrastructure and data transfer speeds between Oak Ridge and Knoxville. 

A-18 
Managing Information with Rural America (MIRA) 

Project Location: Shawnee, Ohio 

Grant Recipient: Sunday Creek Associates 

ARC Number: CO 13236

Project Type: Access to Infrastructure 

Total ARC Funding: $100,000

Total Matching Funds: $120,000 

Date of Site Visit: June 12-13, 2002 

Site Visitor: Kimberley Raue

MIRA was designed to help build the capacity for community development in rural communities through 

collaboration and the use of technology. Sunday Creek Associates, along with three other Community

Support Organizations (CSOs) in southeastern Ohio, sought to increase regional communication and 

coordination, build organizational capacity, and develop and deepen areas of expertise. CSOs were also 

expected to play a significant role in supporting the development of local, resident-driven Community

Teams (CTs), which were also funded by MIRA. 

MIRA was described as catalytic in that it encouraged collaboration between organizations that would not 

normally work together (for example, an arts and media collaboration) and spurred the development of 

true grassroots activism. Many of the collaborative efforts that arose from MIRA have been sustained and 

have effectively enhanced participant organizations’ growth and development, which has had a positive 

impact on the community in which these organizations work. 

CSOs like Sunday Creek Associates have become stronger organizations, benefiting from staff 

development, the purchase of hardware and software, and cooperative relationships with other 

organizations. There are also several CTs still in existence that may not have been established had it not 

been for this project. Among other activities, these teams have promoted business development, preserved 

local history, and organized recreational activities in their communities. 

A-19 
Tompkins County Collaborative Communications 

Project Location: Ithaca, New York 

Grant Recipient: Tompkins County/ Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County, Inc. 

ARC Number: NY 13107

Project Type: Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Total ARC Funding: $95,000 

Total Matching Funds: $95,053

Date of Site Visit: May 2-3, 2002 

Site Visitor: Gary Silverstein and Kelly Long 

The purpose of the grant was to allow county departments and their contracted human service agencies to 

provide increased and higher quality services and outreach through electronic communications. The goal 

was to develop cooperative activities and enhanced service delivery mechanisms by instituting 

performance-based contracting and increasing monitoring and evaluation between local governmental 

departments and 25 participating not-for-profit agencies. The Human Services Coalition viewed the 

project as a way to streamline activities. People envisioned a common application in order not to require 

intake for each client each time, but instead to share information across agencies. Increased technology

and computer training was a need expressed across most of the agencies. 

The primary focus of the ARC grant was to get all of the participating county agencies up to a minimum

standard of equipment and accessibility in order to increase communication methods and capability. This 

was to be accomplished through a combination of equipment purchases, training, assistance in developing 

web sites, and technological support. The intention was to provide increased and higher quality services 

through electronic communication by developing cooperative activities and enhanced delivery

mechanisms, by instituting performance-based contracting, and by increasing monitoring and evaluation 

between local government and the participating agencies. 

The grant has facilitated communication for agencies in several respects. The agencies are able to send 

and receive information regarding funding sources via e-mail, which has allowed for more effective 

reports and timely applications. Agencies can help clients more promptly as increased communication 

speeds up the process of referrals, and they are able to network with other agencies from broader 

coalitions that they may not have been able to communicate with as easily before. Agencies have much 

better access to centralized forms and databases through their connections to the Internet, and, as a result, 

research happens faster, thereby leaving more time for clients. Overall, the project was a success in that it 

equipped agencies with computers and the Internet. In addition, there is evidence that this equipment is 

being used to expand agencies’ operations, make programs more efficient, and make more time available 

for client interactions. 

A-20 
SC-Upstate-Info (SCUI) 

Project Location: Greenville, South Carolina 

Grant Recipient: South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments (ACOG) 

ARC Number: SC 13175

Project Type: Access to Infrastructure 

Total ARC Funding: $420,000

Total Matching Funds: $180,000

Date of Site Visit: May 23, 2002 

Site Visitor: Kelly Long 

The project was designed to aid the citizens of rural and disadvantaged counties through equal access to 

telecommunications and mapping resources, technical support, long-range planning, and county

information. They envisioned this project as a way to provide exposure to rural and disadvantaged 

counties for economic development. 

Previously, the ACOG had founded a regional network named AppNet (Appalachian Network) which had 

helped to get public and community colleges wired to the Internet. Through another ARC 

telecommunications grant, AppNet continued its mission to maintain ACOG’s role in facilitating 

affordable connectivity in the upstate region. The SCUI telecommunications project was a logical 

progression from the point where AppNet left off. There was an established need for a central community

information source. Therefore, the information services division developed a web page with a searchable 

directory of information. 

The council of governments developed a main SC-Upstate-Info home page as well as a separate page for 

each of the six counties of the upstate. The interface was developed based on a framework created in 

previous projects. They updated the look of the pages that had changed several times during the course of 

the project. Nevertheless, each county page had community information on tourism, recreation, 

government, education, health and social services, business and economic development, agriculture and 

weather, and employment. 

ACOG staff admits that end users are so diverse that it is impossible to know all who have benefited from

accessing information available on their web site. They know that it has been used as a tool for tourism

purposes in addition to providing information to individuals and/or companies looking to relocate to the 

area. They believe the web site has helped increase tourism and relocation of business to the area. 

A-21 
Southern Tier Central (STC) Telecommunications Initiative 

Project Location: Painted Post, New York 

Grant Recipient: Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board 

ARC Number: NY 12593

Project Type: Access to Infrastructure 

Total ARC Funding: $97,219

Total Matching Funds: $31,847

Date of Site Visit: June 19, 2002

Site Visitor: Kelly Long 

The STC Initiative was designed to provide technical assistance, phone line costs, training programs, the 

development of web sites, coordination efforts to link various networks together, and the development of 

programming that would be available over the Internet or through videoconferencing to the three-county

region of the STC. The project was intended to provide a continuing phase in the development of the STC 

as a regional point of telecommunication services. The STC was expected to continue to provide technical 

assistance, training, web site development, and networking after the life of the ARC grant. 

The training offered as part of the ARC grant motivated persons in government agencies and economic 

development organizations to make others in their offices more aware of current technology. The 

participants in the computer training courses have learned valuable skills that have helped them perform

their jobs more efficiently and take their skills back to share with others in their agencies. Moreover, the 

project not only succeeded in training members of local agencies to improve their computer literacy. It 

also has led to lasting partnerships that keep opening doors to subsequent opportunities. 

The STC Initiative also has led to other projects, which in turn have led to the state-of-the-art, fiber optic 

wiring of schools in nine school districts. Area schools now have the ability to access and share digitized 

resources from each desktop as well as access the Internet or videoconferencing. Thus, the more rural and 

disadvantaged schools are now able to share the resources of the more affluent areas, which opens doors 

for distance learning for students as well as teachers. Hospitals and other providers are also being wired 

and will be able to benefit in similar ways. 

A-22 
Golden Triangle Telecommunications Network System 

Project Location: Starkville, Mississippi 

Grant Recipient: The Golden Triangle Planning and Development District (GTPDD) 

ARC Number: MS 12805

Project Type: Access to Infrastructure 

Total ARC Funding: $254,173 

Total Matching Funds: $63,543

Date of Site Visit: June 10-11, 2002

Site Visitor: Gary Silverstein 

Prior to the ARC grant, none of the seven county governments that compose the Golden Triangle 

Planning and Development District were able to communicate with one another—or with the state 

government. In addition, these seven county governments were making minimal use of computers and the 

Internet. 

The project was primarily designed to provide the following services to the seven county governments: 1) 

connect the county governments with one another; 2) connect agencies within each county with one 

another; 3) create web pages for each county; 4) purchase videoconferencing equipment that could be 

used to facilitate communication between the counties, promote economic development across the region, 

and provide opportunities for distance learning; and 5) serve as the central point of expertise in 

telecommunications technical assistance. 

Since receiving ARC funding, the project has been able to significantly enhance the equipment and 

knowledge base of the county governments in the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District. 

The county governments received Internet service and training (through another ARC grant), would likely

would not have happened without ARC support. This project was clearly implemented in a region that 

might otherwise have not taken advantage of the Internet. 

However, project staff did not appear to have a good sense of the project’s impact on the government 

agencies or the greater community. For example, they showed no evidence of how the Internet and/or 

staff training had changed the way in which government agencies conduct their business. Moreover, 

Internet access appears to have remained limited in several of the counties due to a weak 

telecommunications infrastructure, and while the videoconferencing equipment received adequate usage 

during the life of the ARC grant, indications are that it is currently underutilized. 

A-23 
Big Sandy Telecommunications Center 

Project Location: Pikeville, Kentucky

Grant Recipient: Big Sandy Telecommuting Services, Inc./Pikeville College 

ARC Number : KY 12014 

Project Type: Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Total ARC Funding: $553,530

Total Matching Funds: $1,105,106

Date of Site Visit: May 21, 2002 

Site Visitor: Gary Silverstein 

Prior to the ARC grant, very few businesses or residents in the Pikeville region had Internet access. In 

fact, there was no Internet service provider (ISP) in the region at the time the grant recipient applied for 

ARC funds. In addition to the lack of an ISP, most businesses and residents in Pikesville lacked access to 

training in the latest computer software programs. Given its isolated setting, there was also a desire to use 

the Internet and other forms of telecommunications technology, such as videoconferencing, to link 

schools, businesses, and community leaders with other communities in eastern Kentucky. 

This project was primarily designed to provide a range of services to the businesses and residents of the 

five counties in the Big Sandy region of Kentucky. These included serving as an ISP, providing training 

and technical support in the use of the Internet and software, and building a telecommunications access 

site equipped with computers and videoconferencing equipment. Although the original ARC grant was 

designed to support a wide range of activities, much of the effort focused on establishing and maintaining 

the community’s only ISP. 

In serving as the region’s first ISP, the project connected over 750 customers to the Internet. In addition, 

through the project’s training and telecommunications acquisitions, community businesses, educational 

institutions, and residents were exposed to new and emerging technologies. While this might have 

occurred without the ARC project, many felt that the ARC project accelerated this process. There are now 

4-6 ISPs in the region, which are staffed or managed by people who received training or were exposed to 

the Internet through the project. In addition, the entire Big Sandy area was recently upgraded with a fiber 

optic backbone, which would not have been possible if not for the ARC grant and the resulting use of the 

Internet throughout the region. 

Over the life of the ARC grant, over 700 people participated in classes on computer skills and 

applications. Because of the project, these professionals were able to take advantage of continuing 

education opportunities without leaving the community. People who attended BSTSI training are now 

employed in numerous businesses and educational institutions practicing the skills learned at BSTSI. 

Finally, the region has experienced increases in business productivity and job security, and several 

businesses had located in the region in part because they were able to find employees who had computer 

skills obtained through BSTSI. 

A-24 
Advantage Valley 

Project Location: Huntington, West Virginia 

Grant Recipient: Marshall University Research Corporation 

ARC Number: WV-12589

Project Type: E-Commerce Readiness/Technology Sector Job Creation 

Total ARC Funding: $209,000

Total Matching Funds: $592,049 

Date of Site Visit: June 17, 2002 

Site Visitor: Brian Kleiner 

The Advantage Valley project vision involved the orchestration of a massive marketing campaign to 

cultivate a tri-state regional entity (called Advantage Valley) that would break down state and community

barriers and persuade community and business leaders that economic collaboration within the region is, in 

the long run, in everyone’s best interests. 

A key component of this campaign to create an economic regional entity was the establishment of an 

Advantage Valley web site. The web site was meant to be instrumental in linking area businesses and 

providing community information for community members as well as for prospective employers 

interested in learning about the region (its transportation, schools, shopping, safety, etc.). The web site 

showcased, under one umbrella, all that was offered and available in the region, and it did this in a 

dynamic, non-static way. The web site was also aimed to serve as a catalyst for regional cooperation. 

Given the history of competition and bickering between communities, something was needed that was 

viewed by all as forward thinking and innovative to challenge and break resistance to cooperation. It was 

believed at the time that the new technology of the Internet would serve as a unifying force and would 

help to affect the cultural shift involved in creating “Advantage Valley” in the minds of community and 

business members. 

The marketing campaign was the centerpiece of the effort to unify the region under the name of 

Advantage Valley. The early marketing campaign consisted of live demonstrations to local businesses on 

the web and its capabilities; popularization and internalization of the name Advantage Valley within the 

region; postings in Site Magazine (a magazine dedicated to news sites for businesses), other national 

magazines, and local newspapers; an Advantage Valley video; wining and dining of local executives; and 

annual dinners that promoted the achievements of community members and businesses. 

The vision of a regional economic entity, working in collaboration toward greater economic prosperity, 

appears to have installed itself as a default position among business and community leaders. Twentyseven major companies within Advantage Valley continue to serve on the Advantage Valley Board of 

Directors and contribute significant funds for operation of the Advantage Valley program. These include 

utility companies, banks, chambers of commerce, hospitals, postsecondary institutions, and local 

television stations. This continuing support indicates a consensus belief that regional cooperation is in 

everyone’s best interests. 

A-25 
Jefferson Community College Computer Labs 

Project Location: Steubenville, Ohio 

Grant Recipient: Jefferson Community College 

ARC Number: OH-12562

Project Type: Education, Training, and Workforce Development 

Total ARC Funding: $198,300

Total Matching Funds: $198,300 

Date of Site Visit: April 18-19, 2002 

Site Visitor: Brian Kleiner and Carl Setzer 

The ARC grant was used to accomplish two immediate aims. The first was to install a computations lab in 

which computer science courses could be taught. The lab included, among other things, 28 workstations 

networked through UNIX, Novell, and Windows NT file servers. The hardware and software purchased 

with ARC funds provided for a significant stepping up of the computer science program at the college. 

The second aim was the upgrading of the Computer Aided Design (CAD) laboratory. This included the 

installation of equipment and software that made possible the most currently available computer-based 

design capabilities. These new capabilities represented a quantum leap for the CAD lab, because previous 

outdated equipment made instruction and hands-on learning difficult. The lab is used by students in 

design, manufacturing, robotics, and mechanical engineering technologies. 

Students benefited in a variety of ways as a result of the equipment purchased with ARC funds. In 

general, students could be trained on the latest equipment and software and could acquire the skills and 

knowledge requisite for employment in technical fields. Specifically, students were able to take 

programming courses that would not have otherwise been available. In addition, students were exposed to 

a variety of operating systems (Novell, Unix, NT). In the CAD lab, students could train on the most upto-date software on faster machines, saving instruction time and increasing the pace of learning. 

According to the current Dean of Information and Engineering Technologies, the new equipment and 

software “drastically changed students’ experiences,” and “opened opportunities to them, like minor 

league to major league.” 

Another important benefit for students, as a result of the ARC grant, was the ability to transfer computer 

science credits to 4-year institutions. The transfer program facilitated continuing education by providing 

for a smoother and less expensive transition from Jefferson Community College to other schools. 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that students were successful in finding employment after graduating (for 

those who did not transfer to a 4-year school). The AutoCAD instructor said that most of his students “get 

jobs before getting out of school,” many after having done internships. According to this teacher, 95 

percent of graduates find work in-field or else go on the 4-year colleges. 

A-26 
A-27 

Appendix B 

Notes on the Technical Approach 

B-1
B-2 
Appendix B 

Notes on the Technical Approach 

This appendix provides an overview of the 

procedures used to conduct the evaluation of 

ARC’s telecommunications projects.

Specifically, information is provided on the 

procedures used to (1) determine the study

universe, (2) conduct the document review, and 

(3) conduct the telephone survey. 

Determining the Study Sample 

The evaluation encompassed the 70 completed 

telecommunications projects that were funded by

ARC from 1994 to 2000.21 The ARC database 

contained information about all 70 completed 

projects that were awarded grants during this 

period. ARC made available to Westat project 

files for each of these awards. The information 

extracted from the documentation enabled us to 

establish a point of contact with each project and 

to then determine whether someone with 

knowledge of the ARC grant was still available to 

reply to the telephone survey. We were able to 

identify a knowledgeable contact for all 70 

projects. 

Document Review 

ARC provided Westat with copies of available 

documentation for all 70 telecommunications 

projects. The most widely available form of 

documentation was the announcement/summary

of the ARC grant (86 percent of projects) 

followed by final reports (62 percent), the initial 

proposal to ARC (59 percent), and progress 

reports (18 percent). The following information 

about the projects was entered into an Access 

database: 

• Project description; 

 

 

21All of the projects were closed (i.e., no longer receiving ARC 

funding) as of spring 2002. 

• Population sectors served;22

• Project activities; 

• Project beneficiaries; 

• Obstacles/barriers to implementation; and 

• Objectives. 

We made considerable use of the information 

obtained through the document review. First, 

these data were used to provide project staff with 

background information about the types of 

activities and outcomes that were supported by

ARC. Second, the document review database was 

used to develop some of the close-ended options 

for the telephone survey. Third, we used the 

materials in a subset of project files to inform the 

selection of the case study sites. Finally, 

examples from the document review were used to 

illustrate findings in the final report. 

Telephone Survey 

The telephone survey represented the primary

data collection activity. The survey was designed 

to obtain data concerning project context, 

implementation, and accomplishments, as well as 

information about the extent to which projects 

achieved anticipated outcomes. Specifically, 

section 1 of the survey contained primarily closeended items relating to project context. Section 2 

focused on the specific activities of projects, and 

any obstacles or problems they encountered 

during the planning and implementation stages. 

Section 3 inquired about project technology, and 

22Projects were categorized into one or more of the following 

sectors: education, government, health, business, economic 

development, library, community/social services, public safety, 

and other. 

B-3
section 4 asked about project goals and outcomes. 

The final two sections contained questions about 

current project status and the overall impact of the 

ARC grant. 

The survey was pretested with 5 of the 70 

projects in early January 2001. The survey was 

subsequently revised and conducted in late 

January and early February 2002. A 100 percent 

response rate was achieved; therefore, 

information obtained from the telephone survey

reflects the universe of 70 completed 

telecommunications projects that were awarded 

grants between 1994 and 2000. A copy of the 

survey is provided on the following pages. 

B-4 
B-5

AFFIX LABEL HERE 

ARC TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SURVEY 

1. Please indicate the category that best describes the grant recipient organization. Was it ... 

(CIRCLE ONLY ONE.)

 An educational organization, ................................................................................................... 1 

 A government organization, ..................................................................................................... 2 

 A private sector organization,................................................................................................... 3 

 A community or social services organization, or ..................................................................... 4 

 Some other type of organization? 

(SPECIFY) _______________________________________________________________ 5 

2. What was the last year you received ARC funding for this project? [INTERVIEWER: RANGE 

SHOULD BE BETWEEN 1993 AND 2001. IF YEAR GIVEN IS OUT OF RANGE, CHECK 

WITH SUPERVISOR.] 

 _________________________________________

These next questions are about the project. By “project” we are referring to all of a project’s goals, 

objectives, and activities, including those that were not directly or indirectly supported by ARC funding. 

3. Which of the following sectors did this project intend to serve? How about the... (CIRCLE 1 FOR 

YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. Education sector? ................................................................................................. 1 2 

b. Government? ....................................................................................................... 1 2 

c. Health care? ......................................................................................................... 1 2 

d. Business or private? ............................................................................................. 1 2 

e. Economic development? ...................................................................................... 1 2 

f. Library? ............................................................................................................... 1 2

g. Community or social services? ............................................................................ 1 2 

h. Any other sectors? 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 1 2 
B-6 

4. Which one of the following best describes the geographic distribution of the individuals who had 

direct access to the equipment or resources from this project? (CIRCLE ONLY ONE.) 

 A single county,........................................................................................................................ 1 

 Two or more but not all ARC counties within a single state, .................................................. 2 

 All ARC counties within a single state,.................................................................................... 3 

 Two or more states, or .............................................................................................................. 4 

 Some other geographic area? 

(SPECIFY) _______________________________________________________________ 5 

5. Which one of the following best describes the geographic distribution of the individuals who 

indirectly benefited from the project (i.e., individuals who did not have direct access to project 

resources or equipment)? (CIRCLE ONLY ONE.)

 A single county,........................................................................................................................ 1 

 Two or more but not all ARC counties within a single state, .................................................. 2 

 All ARC counties within a single state,.................................................................................... 3 

 Two or more states, or .............................................................................................................. 4 

 Some other geographic area? 

(SPECIFY) _______________________________________________________________ 5 

 Not applicable (i.e., no individuals indirectly benefited from the project)............................... 6 

6. Was this project designed to provide direct services, resources, or other assistance to people who 

are... (CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. Living in poverty? ............................................................................................... 1 2 

b. Illiterate? .............................................................................................................. 1 2 

c. Disabled? ............................................................................................................. 1 2 

d. Elderly? ................................................................................................................ 1 2 

e. Geographically isolated or rural? ......................................................................... 1 2 

f. Living in urban or inner-city areas? .................................................................... 1 2 

g. Unemployed or underemployed? ......................................................................... 1 2 

h. Underrepresented minorities?............................................................................... 1 2 

i. Any other group? (SPECIFY) ______________________________________ 1 2 
PROJECT ACTIVITIES 

Now let’s talk about project activities that were implemented. 

7. Did the project... (PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH ITEM IN COLUMN A. 

FOR EACH ITEM IN WHICH “YES” WAS SELECTED, CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE IN 

COLUMN B.) 

Column A. 

Column B. 

What proportion of 

this activity was 

funded by ARC?

Yes No None Some All

a. Establish a new computer or telecommunications 

access center? ................................................................ 1 2 1 2 3

b. Upgrade an existing computer or telecommunications 

access center? ................................................................ 1 2 1 2 3

c. Provide on-site education and training?......................... 1 2 1 2 3

d. Provide training in the use of telecommunications? ...... 1 2 1 2 3

e. Develop a distance learning system for electronic or 

online training? .............................................................. 1 2 1 2 3

f. Develop materials for distance learning or educational 

training? ......................................................................... 1 2 1 2 3

g. Develop materials regarding the use of 

telecommunications technologies?................................. 1 2 1 2 3

h. Create a network of certified trainers? ........................... 1 2 1 2 3

i. Install videoconferencing equipment? ........................... 1 2 1 2 3

j. Establish a new interactive network for distance 

learning, teleconferencing, or telemedicine?.................. 1 2 1 2 3

k. Upgrade an existing network for distance learning, 

teleconferencing, or telemedicine?................................. 1 2 1 2 3

l. Establish new links between existing networks? ........... 1 2 1 2 3

m. Develop a new database or link existing databases to 

the Internet?.................................................................... 1 2 1 2 3

n. Facilitate communications between various regions or 

organizations? ................................................................ 1 2 1 2 3

o. Develop a strategic plan to meet long-term

telecommunications needs?............................................ 1 2 1 2 3

p. Conduct an assessment of existing information 

technology capabilities? ................................................. 1 2 1 2 3

q. Conduct a telecommunications marketing effort or 

outreach program?.......................................................... 1 2 1 2 3

[INTERVIEWER: CHECK TO ENSURE THAT FOR EACH “YES’ RESPONSE, COLUMN B WAS 

ASKED.]

B-7 
B-8 

8. Were there any activities proposed in your ARC application that were not fully or successfully 

implemented? (CIRCLE ONLY ONE.) 

 YES......................................... 1 (GO TO QUESTION 9.) 

 NO .......................................... 2 (GO TO INSTRUCTION AFTER QUESTION 9.) 

9. What were these activities and why were they not fully or successfully implemented? 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 
Now I would like to ask you about obstacles or problems that could be encountered while carrying out the 

project activities. For each, please indicate if you encountered the obstacle, did not encounter the 

obstacle, or did not encounter the obstacle because the situation did not pertain to your project. 

10. With respect to administration and planning, were any of the following an obstacle or problem? 

How about... (ON EACH LINE CIRCLE 1 FOR YES, 2 FOR NO, OR 3 IF THE SITUATION 

DID NOT APPLY.)

 Situation 

 did not 

 Yes No apply 

a. Underestimating the resources needed? ............................................ 1 2 

b. Underestimating time or effort needed? ........................................... 1 2 

c. Underestimating the demand for services? ....................................... 1 2 3 

d. Participants not fully utilizing services?............................................ 1 2 3 

e. Underestimating the potential for obsolescence of equipment? ....... 1 2 3 

f. Local administrative delays? ............................................................ 1 2 3 

g. Changes in key personnel? ................................................................ 1 2 

h. Inadequate or unqualified staff? ....................................................... 1 2 

i. Communication problems or misunderstanding of roles? ................ 1 2 

j. Project funds were depleted before implementation?........................ 1 2 

k. Matching funds were less than expected or never received?............. 1 2 

l. Delays in receiving payments or reimbursements? ........................... 1 2 3 

m. Contractual delays or delays in awarding of the grant? .................... 1 2 

Thinking now about the implementation of the project, were any of 

the following obstacles or problems? How about... 

n. Construction delays? ......................................................................... 1 2 3 

o. Delays in contracting with an outside service provider? .................. 1 2 3 

p. Problems installing equipment? ........................................................ 1 2 3 

q. Equipment order or receipt delays? .................................................. 1 2 3 

r. Equipment compatibility concerns? ................................................. 1 2 3 

s. Problems in developing program materials? .................................... 1 2 3 

t. Were there any other obstacles that prevented you from carrying 

out the project activities? (SPECIFY) _______________________ 1 2 

 _____________________________________________________ 

 _____________________________________________________ 

 _____________________________________________________ 

 _____________________________________________________ 

B-9 
B-10 

PROJECT TECHNOLOGY 

These next few questions are about project-related telecommunications technology. 

11. Did the project use... (CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. Dial-up telephone lines and modems? ................................................................. 1 2 

b. Wireless services such as cellular, PCS, or microwave? ..................................... 1 2 

c. Satellite services? ................................................................................................ 1 2 

d. Cable modems? .................................................................................................... 1 2 

e. Digital services, such as ISDN, DSL, or T1? ....................................................... 1 2 

f. Any other telecommunications technologies? 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 1 2 

12. Which of the following devices were made available to project participants? How about.... 

(CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. Personal computers? ............................................................................................ 1 2 

b. Network computers? ............................................................................................ 1 2 

c. A video teleconferencing unit?............................................................................. 1 2 

d. Any other telecommunications devices? 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 1 2 

13. Did your project help participants obtain access to the Internet? 

 YES......................................... 1 (GO TO QUESTION 14.) 

 NO .......................................... 2 (GO TO QUESTION 15.) 

14. Which of the following types of Internet service providers did your project’s participants use to 

connect to the Internet? (CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. A commercial Internet service provider or ISP ................................................... 1 2 

b. A nonprofit community network .......................................................................... 1 2 

c. A university or college network .......................................................................... 1 2 

d. A K-12 school network......................................................................................... 1 2 

e. A state or local government network ................................................................... 1 2 

f. The project itself provides Internet services directly to participants .................... 1 2 

g. Some other type of Internet service provider 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 1 2 
PROJECT GOALS AND OUTCOMES 

I’d like to talk with you now about the project goals and outcomes. 

15. Did the project aim to... (PLEASE INDICATE “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH ITEM IN 

COLUMN A. FOR EACH ITEM IN WHICH “YES” WAS SELECTED, CIRCLE ONE 

RESPONSE IN COLUMN B.) 

Column A. 

Column B. 

How successful was your 

project in meeting this goal? 

Yes No

Less than 

expected 

Same as 

expected 

More than 

expected

a. Improve skills training and education 

opportunities? ............................................... 1 2 1 2 3

b. Improve delivery of and access to social 

services? ........................................................ 1 2 1 2 3

c. Enhance employment opportunities? ........... 1 2 1 2 3

d. Enhance economic development? ................. 1 2 1 2 3

e. Enhance community development? .............. 1 2 1 2 3

f. Improve delivery of and access to 

government services? ................................... 1 2 1 2 3

g. Enhance long-term telecommunications 

needs? ........................................................... 1 2 1 2 3

h. Improve consumers’ access to quality health

care? .............................................................. 1 2 1 2 3

i. Enhance coordination of community-wide 

information and communication services? ... 1 2 1 2 3 

j. Something else? 

(SPECIFY) __________________________

___________________________________ 1 2 1 2 3

[INTERVIEWER: CHECK TO ENSURE THAT FOR EACH “YES” RESPONSE, COLUMN B WAS 

ASKED.]

B-11 
B-12 

16. What was the approximate number of individuals who had direct access 

to the equipment or resources provided by your project? .........................

[INTERVIEWER: RANGE SHOULD BE BETWEEN 0 AND 9995. 

IF RESPONDENT CANNOT GIVE A NUMBER, PROBE FOR ESTIMATE.]

(If not applicable, check this box.)............................................................

17. What was the most important outcome, anticipated or not, to result from the ARC grant?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT STATUS 

Now let’s talk about the status of the project. 

18. Which statement best describes the current status of your project?

The project is in operation and serving a function that has expanded 

from that outlined in the original proposal. ............................................ 1 (GO TO QUESTION 19.) 

The project is in operation and serving a function that has stayed 

about the same as that outlined in the original proposal. ........................ 2 (GO TO QUESTION 23.) 

The project is in operation and serving a function that has been 

reduced from that outlined in the original proposal. ............................... 3 (GO TO QUESTION 21.) 

The project is no longer in operation....................................................... 4 (GO TO QUESTION 22.) 

19. Which of the following statements indicates the way(s) in which your project has expanded? 

(CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. The project is serving more individuals. .............................................................. 1 2 

b. The project is providing more services. ............................................................... 1 2 

c. The project has grown in some other way. 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 1 2 

(GO TO QUESTION 20.) 

20. Which of the following statements indicates the factors that have facilitated expansion of the 

project? How about... (CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. Increased need for services in the community? ................................................... 1 2 

b. Additional funding available for additional participants or services? ................. 1 2 

c. Loss of other services in the community that led the project to take on 

additional roles? ................................................................................................... 1 2 

d. Additional areas of need recognized since the grant inception? .......................... 1 2 

e. The service community recognized the value of the services and/or the ease 

of access?.............................................................................................................. 1 2 

f. Some other factor? 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________ 2 

(GO TO QUESTION 23.) 

B-13 
B-14 

21. Which of the following statements indicates the way(s) in which your project has been reduced? 

(CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. The project is serving fewer individuals. ............................................................. 1 2 

b. The project is providing fewer services. .............................................................. 1 2 

c. The project was reduced in some other way. 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 1 2 

22. Which of the following factors are responsible for the project no longer operating or no longer 

operating at full capacity? (CIRCLE 1 FOR YES OR 2 FOR NO ON EACH LINE.) 

 Yes No 

a. Mechanical obsolescence (for example equipment became inoperable, 

unreliable, or worn out) ....................................................................................... 1 2 

b. Technological obsolescence (for example faster, more accurate, 

or better alternatives became available) ............................................................... 1 2 

c. Personnel changes ................................................................................................ 1 2 

d. Lack of funding available for maintenance or operations .................................... 1 2 

e. Lack of or poor technical support......................................................................... 1 2 

f. Lack of community awareness or support ............................................................ 1 2 

g. Problems with the facilities .................................................................................. 1 2 

h. The provided services were not considered valuable or were too difficult 

to use..................................................................................................................... 1 2

i. Met need and project no longer necessary............................................................ 1 2 

j. Some other factor? 

(SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________ 1 2 
IMPACT OF THE ARC GRANT 

These last questions are about the impact of the ARC grant. 

23. If you had not received funds through the Appalachian Regional Commission, do you think the 

project would have been....(CIRCLE ONLY ONE.)

 fully implemented,...................................................................... 1 (GO TO QUESTION 24.) 

partially implemented, or............................................................ 2 (GO TO QUESTION 24.) 

 never implemented?.................................................................... 3 (GO TO CLOSE.) 

24. If you had not received ARC funds, do you believe the project would ....(CIRCLE ONLY ONE.)

Still be able to offer the full range of services,........................................ 1 

Offer slightly fewer services, or .............................................................. 2 

 Offer significantly fewer services?.......................................................... 3 

25. If you had not received ARC funds, do you believe the project would have.... (CIRCLE ONLY 

ONE.) 

Reached an equivalent number of people,............................................... 1 

Reached slightly fewer people, or ........................................................... 2 

Reached significantly fewer people? ....................................................... 3 

26. If you had not received ARC funds, do you believe the project would have been....(CIRCLE 

ONLY ONE.)

Implemented on the same schedule, ........................................................ 1 

Delayed slightly, or.................................................................................. 2 

 Substantially delayed? ............................................................................. 3 

CLOSE: 

Those are all of the questions I have for you. Thank you for your time and participation in this survey. 

Interviewer’s initials ________

 Date _____________________

B-15