Framing Access: Digital Navigators and Libraries

Abstract

To explore the expanding role of libraries in providing internet access and promoting digital literacy, this article examines ten libraries in one state that developed Digital Navigator programs. Representing a mix of small and rural as well as metropolitan and large libraries, the libraries’ efforts offer a different philosophy in dealing with digital divide factors. This research investigates how libraries launched Digital Navigator programs, the processes behind developing them, and how they reflect notions of information access. This investigation analyzes the circumstances and controversies more broadly, which can shape digital information strategies in public libraries.

Traditionally, public libraries have positioned themselves as vital sources of information and advocates of inclusivity within society. They have been known as free and accessible institutions, offering materials in various languages and formats, thereby making them one of the most inclusive and trusted public establishments in the United States and other countries. However, with evolving preferences and even mandates for accessing online information for conducting routine tasks such as applying for jobs or completing healthcare paperwork, public libraries face the challenge of both adapting to new online information-seeking behaviors and shaping those behaviors among patrons, particularly people who lack digital skills. An approach dubbed Digital Navigators has emerged as a promising role for public libraries.

Digital divide statistics have created new roles and even obligations for public libraries: as institutions that have continuously adapted and embraced new missions and purposes, thanks in part to their inherent qualities as public spaces, libraries are deeply rooted in local communities.¹ Their localized approach has shaped the library’s services, leading to the development of collections and services tailored to meet the specific interests of targeted populations within the community. Recognizing the digital divide and information gaps more broadly, libraries provide in-library computers with internet access for those who lack such resources at home. Many, if not most, offer Wi-Fi connectivity so that people may bring their own devices, and some provide connectivity outside of the walls of the library building through Wi-Fi hotspot lending programs and even after hours—a community service that became especially important during the pandemic in the United States. They have introduced “maker spaces” and other technology-centric activities especially targeting children and often initiated digital training classes. These offerings reflect the library’s responsiveness to the changing demands and interests of its users. Such roles redefine ideas about access as well.²

Addressing digital information gaps by making computers, connectivity, and some computer classes available comprises one response. They highlight the flexibility and commitment to cultural democracy that have been integral to the library’s ongoing evolution and relevance in society.³ However, libraries’ resources are finite. How do libraries engage and assess new community-based needs? How might the evolving definitions of access influence the shape of their roles, especially in the context of ongoing digital divides? Additionally, libraries are safe spaces, making them attractive and nonthreatening for learning, especially for marginalized populations and for nontraditional “students” such as seniors. These qualities too may figure into addressing digital information gaps.

In reviewing the literature, we examine ideas of access in civic institutions such as public libraries, particularly against the backdrop of the digital divide. We then locate the idea of Digital Navigation as it has developed among institutions redressing the digital divide. We conceptualize the public library as an element of social infrastructure, as important as conventional physical infrastructures associated with water, power, and sewers, offering places and resources that support collective life and interaction. In this function, how libraries approach our digital lives becomes salient.

Literature Review

Various framings of access are pertinent to investigating the idea of Digital Navigation as a model. We examine how digital divide–related scholarship has addressed access, including the role of libraries. A second section reviews the idea of Digital Navigators. The Digital Navigators concept is derived from the role of “Health Navigators,” those who assisted people with enrolling in the Affordable Care Act more than 10 years ago. Digital Navigators is a relatively young idea that conveys the idea of meeting multiple needs simultaneously—connectivity, devices, skills—and having someone to assist in getting people online. It is premised on a tailored and flexible approach. Libraries have been core participants in such programs in the United States, and the holistic approach that Digital Navigation embraces may be central to libraries’ continuing social contributions.

Access, the Digital Divide and Libraries

As the nature of what has come to be called the digital divide took shape in the late 1990s, efforts to both characterize the nature of the divide and how to remediate it emerged in tandem. Although earliest conceptions of the divide focused on devices, first whether computer ownership divides existed, and later how Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and subscriptions that enabled people to access the internet (now characterized as connectivity) were distributed, abilities to use computers and the internet followed closely behind.⁴ How one characterizes the divide determines how one addresses it.

Other regions face challenges comparable to those in the United States in terms of accessing internet connectivity. Affordability and poverty are major drivers to lack of connectivity in Europe.⁵ Statistics from Eurostat found that many do not have the financial means to purchase the internet. According to the figures from Eurostat, which develops, produces, and publishes statistics and data at the European level, about 2.4% of the 450 million living in European Union (EU) member states could not afford an internet connection. This figure represents a slight improvement from previous years. Among those at risk for poverty, the figure climbs to 7.6%. Across member states, significant disparities exist. Scandinavian countries, particularly Finland and Denmark, are at the forefront of digital inclusivity, whereas Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary face significant challenges. As in the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the gaps in the internet infrastructure in Europe. Statistics from the Center for European Policy Analysis found that 70% of the households in the EU used high-speed internet. That figure drops to 40% in the rural regions of the EU.⁶ The systematic literature review from Lythreatis et al. identify worldwide digital divide research and patterns that underscore the significance of sociodemographic and socioeconomic variables in shaping digital divide experiences.⁷ Their final observation that “understanding the divide and finding ways to enhance digital capabilities and skills will help in building agility which is crucial for an organization’s success” (p. 8) is especially pertinent in considering how organizations including libraries remediate the digital divide because it goes beyond simple connectivity problems and signals the centrality of capabilities and skills.

Politics figure into the institutional response. Routine alterations in the politics of government have been linked to whether or not digital divides even existed: For the Bush Administration in the early twenty-first century, the digital divide was closed; for the Obama Administration following it, the digital divide was clearly in full swing, demanding to be addressed.⁸ The Obama Administration sponsored multimillion-dollar programs to address digital divides (the $7 billion Broadband Technology Opportunity Program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], and the $2.5 billion Broadband Initiatives Program administered by the US Department of Agriculture). Alongside politics, an active tier of nonprofit organizations and other community-based efforts developed to address a digital divide shaped by location, income, education, race and ethnicity, and age. Rural regions lacking easy, cheap, and reliable internet connections showed consistently lower digital access in the United States, lagging metro regions by about 10 percentage points in terms of household subscriptions to an ISP.⁹ In metro areas, although access may be available, affordability hampered access to devices such as computers, as well as to monthly internet subscriptions or mobile phone data plans. Contemporary research underscores how intractable both access and affordability are in the United States, and the pandemic expanded awareness of this widespread problem.¹⁰ Consequently, public efforts to create locally available connections whether in kiosks in public places or in civic institutions such as schools and libraries have steadily grown, and increasingly are accompanied by growing recognition of the significance of computer skills and internet resources.

The United States and the EU have prioritized infrastructure funding for internet connectivity in various legislation. Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009 emphasized both building infrastructure that could more effectively reach regions then unserved by broadband providers (including constructing middle-mile facilities to bring down last-mile connection costs) and boosting digital literacy training and digital inclusion more broadly. Anchor institutions like libraries were identified as important nodes in the growing networks, places that could aggregate demand, provide expertise, and serve their local communities. As well, a series of surveys from a federal agency, the NTIA, documented the state of connectivity and device ownership from 1994 through 2012 even as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sought to map the geographies of various service offerings from the 1990s. ARRA-funded programs funneled projects to infrastructure and digital literacy efforts. Those efforts built on earlier, legislatively mandated E-Rate programs under the 1996 Telecom Act that offered discounted connectivity and devices for schools and libraries across the 50 states. More recently, the federal government has budgeted over 40 billion dollars under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program that will support building internet networks and facilitate other grant programs, including state libraries.¹¹

The EU, among other regions, also has a “universal service” requirement in which all citizens should have access to functional and affordable internet. Within the EU, digital communications is considered an essential service. The EU has made connectivity in which every household has access to high-speed internet a goal, but some analysts argue that achieving such access by the year 2025 appears more hopeful than realistic.¹²

Public libraries rose to these calls in many countries. Those local facilities typically have trusted roles in their communities, and they are open to everyone, free, and often available on weekends and evenings. For example, in Estonia, the Estonians Librarians’ Association and State Information System Agency organized a cybersecurity advice day in 2019 for 90 libraries across Estonia. During these sessions, senior citizens could seek advice on cybersecurity issues.¹³ In the United States, libraries’ unique position within city or county government enabled libraries to assume jobs related to enhancing the latest digital literacy. In the late 1990s and on through the twenty-first century, US libraries added computers, obtained internet connections, and offered computer classes. As one historian has noted, American libraries have a complicated history regarding how they best serve and interact with their patrons,¹⁴ but over time librarians developed a willingness to serve (if not always to endorse) the democracies of culture evident in multiple cultural tastes. Although they did this without much fanfare or gratitude from cultural elites, their professional services enabled millions of users to construct multiple knowledge canons unique to their own cultures and to acquire the skills that were meaningful to their situation. This continues to be the case with respect to cultivating digital literacy.

This “willingness to serve” catalyzed multiple facets of democratic culture that now go well beyond loaning books. Public computers, free Wi-Fi technology “petting zoos,”¹⁵ exhibit spaces, and more are typical in many American libraries. With respect to the growing presence of digital culture and digital communication and media forms, it was logical that libraries adapt and adopt a central role in providing access. The history of libraries addressing the digital divide has been extensively chronicled by scholars including Bertot et al.; Jaeger et al.; Real et al.; Kinney; and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in conjunction with the American Library Association (ALA) and other partners.¹⁶ These studies and reports frequently note that public libraries were the only public source of free internet access in their communities in the first decade of this century,¹⁷ sometimes struggling to obtain E-Rate-funded services that afforded speedier broadband connections. The Gates Foundation-led investigation of libraries’ roles (from some 20 years ago) remediating local digital divides lauded their impressive performance in serving communities but also cautioned that such work exceeds the institutional capacity of public libraries alone. Their remarks set the stage for broader considerations of public and private partnerships that libraries might undertake in order to expand their digital inclusion services. As will be discussed later, such a partnership became central to a new vision of public library services.

Access remains a problem in the United States. Estimates from the FCC indicate that 14.5 million Americans do not have a high-speed fixed internet connection.¹⁸ The Pew Research Center found that 23% of Americans do not have broadband at home,¹⁹ whereas the share of Americans who have high-speed internet is growing, nearly a quarter do not have home access, primarily owing to affordability reasons.²⁰ The Pew study also documented the growing dependence on smartphones for nonhome broadband subscribers. As of 2021, one in five adults (19%) said that their smartphones did everything they needed to do online, obviating the need for a fixed-line home subscription.²¹ Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic drove home the essentialness of connectivity in American lives, as many scholars note.²²

The ALA identified a common thread among libraries across the United States during the past decade and especially during the pandemic: their capacity and efforts to keep communities connected.²³ The pandemic challenged libraries in unprecedented ways, with many temporarily shuttered to the public, pivoting to curbside service or mounting connectivity efforts by extending library-based internet access outside the walls of the building. Recognizing that millions of people depend on libraries for assistance in finding employment and housing, completing homework assignments, taking remote classes, or paying bills online, libraries kept communities from drifting apart by providing outdoor Wi-Fi, hotspot lending, and virtual and in-building resources and technology support. Digital distress would have deepened without these efforts. With such actions, libraries began to redefine access.²⁴ ALA President Wong has made much of contemporary libraries’ new role as “technology hubs” and captures what may be a new phase of these institutions’ centrality.²⁵ That characterization is appropriate to the conceptualization of Digital Navigators in libraries.

New Models for Access: Digital Navigators

Approaches to cultivating digital inclusion assumed varied shapes as of around 2010. Even as conventional computer training became more routine in K–12 schools, the growing recognition that many people were not reached by conventional schools prompted digital literacy efforts from nonprofit and for-profit organizations that sought to reach the unconnected or less connected. As the internet itself developed, digital literacy needs across broader populations became pressing. From an institutional perspective, providing the skills to bring everyone toward the opportunities represented by digital literacy has called for myriad approaches. Connectivity needs expanded as more and more services became online-only, a trend that continues. On top of the availability of an internet connection, people need devices, skills to use them, and continued access to the funds to support an ongoing connection. People also may need each other in order to promote a learning environment. As Reisdorf et al. note, enhancing multiple points of access, with attendant abilities to exploit the unique affordances of different devices such as phones as well as computers, is important to realizing the advantages of digital resources.²⁶

Exploring solutions to digital inclusion links libraries to the approach now called Digital Navigation. Digital Navigators are individuals who address the complete digital inclusion process—home connectivity, devices, and digital skills—with community members through repeated interactions.²⁷ Navigators can be volunteers or cross-trained paid staff who already work in social service agencies, libraries, health, or other settings that offer in-person guidance. Often based at trusted community-based organizations, Digital Navigators are conversant in resources that build digital equity and help members of the public to learn to use critical online services that guide with food support, rent, education, employment, childcare, government benefits, and more.²⁸ In other words, this model of access, displayed in Figure 1, links connectivity, access to a device, and digital literacy in order to integrate digital inclusion in ways meaningful to individuals’ unique circumstances.²⁹ Community partnerships and local needs assessments contribute to the landscape of digital inclusion efforts. In being comprehensive and not singling out only access or only a single answer to a single question or even only the people who already come to the library, the vision of Digital Navigators includes community outreach and even community building.

Libraries use varied approaches to develop Digital Navigator programs according to the needs of their communities and extant resources. The Salt Lake City Public Library system provides a useful model for Digital Navigator programs and is broadly acknowledged as an authoritative blueprint. Described by one source as “. . .much-needed just-in-time, one-to-one and small group dedicated support via phone service, email, text, video chat, in-person (if possible), and other communication methods that work for the learner-worker,” Digital Navigator programs are flexible and adaptable.³⁰ Although some comment that libraries have always been doing this sort of work to enable people to use the internet, the Digital Navigator elements specifically acknowledge the links between maintaining connectivity, using a smart device, digital literacy, and assessing the efficacy of training. It is more than solving a single problem in a limited period of time; it is an ongoing and holistic commitment to community inclusion.

However, one must acknowledge the developments in place in Salt Lake that enhanced the program’s success. For example, they had been grappling with digital inclusion previously for several years and had access to trained staff when they launched their Digital Navigator efforts. The Salt Lake Library system had a solid base of digital inclusion initiatives, augmented by partnerships, prior to the pandemic, although COVID-19 spotlighted the need for digital inclusion services and highlighted persistent digital inequities.³¹ The system partnered with the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), the Urban Libraries Council (ULC), and the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to address the local digital divide,³² and IMLS, a federal agency, awarded the system a $411,000 grant in 2020 to develop its Digital Navigator model.

Several operational advantages are evident in the Salt Lake system. It hired people who already had experience as Digital Navigators from the outset. When it launched its Digital Navigators in 2020 as a pilot project to offer individualized digital inclusion services comprising connectivity assistance, device assistance, and basic digital skills support over the phone, it built on the training contributions from the ULC.³³ It also responded to calls for support and assessed the needs of the community, arriving at a goal of supporting 450 low-income and/or senior Salt Lake City residents over a six-month period.³⁴ As the pandemic wore on, services from the Digital Navigators’ direct service in mid-July 2021 reached 585 individuals over the course of its 10-month program, exceeding the initial goal of 450 people.

Digital Navigators addressed the digital inclusion process through repeated interactions and a needs assessment study that enabled neighborhood targeting by the Salt Lake program.³⁵ Device needs were identified, and librarians loaned devices, such as laptops, digital media equipment, and Wi-Fi hotspots, and they provided internet, electronic resources, and digital skills access. The program also achieved an expanded awareness among the public of library services, and its remote services reached individuals who were not able to access in-person services.

The model is in essence a lengthy process. The library system learned that ongoing support and relationships matter and building strong relationships would be more effective. Certain internal practices, such as blocking time for appointments, were effective. Participant feedback suggested that people became more confident of their skills after longer interactions in consultations and that digital literacy skills varied for different devices. The Digital Navigator program found that letting people know about services is critical to success, and the Salt Lake City experience demonstrates that successful marketing strategies can include canvassing neighborhoods, partnering with organizations, and spreading the word through community events.

This model of a Digital Navigator program clearly has many moving parts and represents a broad constellation of resources that were both external to the library (e.g., federal funding from IMLS) and internal to its operation in terms of staff availability and materials. Elements of this approach have been practiced piecemeal by other libraries for many years, but the Digital Navigator difference rests in how it offers a complete package, from connection to device to training and beyond, incorporating targeted marketing, outreach, and partnerships. This leads us to our first research question: to what extent might this model be replicated? With more modest resources, or in other environments, to what extent can a Digital Navigator model achieve similar outcomes? Understanding the applicability of the approach can lead to meaningful policy adjustments.

New Roles for Libraries

The COVID-19 pandemic swiftly shifted the role of the library from a physical place of access to a remote and virtual place of access. Libraries were forced to quickly shut down their services. Many cities and counties asked library staff to help with the emergency response to the pandemic by assisting with food distribution and other emergency services.³⁶ As common interactions and services became virtual, libraries also shifted their role to provide information access remotely. Libraries began offering phone calls with librarians and doubled down on digital e-books and other virtual resources.³⁷ According to a survey by Pew Research, although mobile library resources were gaining prominence in the years leading up to the pandemic, these resources suddenly became primary. Libraries’ evolution to expand their mission of information access beyond their original charter had consisted of broadening library assets beyond books to include “seed libraries” and “a library of things”,³⁸ but operating within the pandemic went well beyond those practices. As library staff took on the roles of teacher, social worker, and childcare worker to support community needs, the institution’s social infrastructure and identity as a physical space “where all kinds of people can gather” had to change. Internal processes for staffing, developing programs, and even hiring people were affected by the pandemic and have their own standards and rhythms.³⁹ Also, external factors beyond the direct control of the library, such as a job market for librarians, access to external funding, or even the status of broadband connectivity necessarily figure into how well an approach like the Digital Navigator model may be implemented.

One realization during the COVID-19 pandemic was the significance of public library access to free and reliable internet. Pew Research Center reported in 2015 that “27% of patrons who visited a public library used its computers, internet connection, or Wi-Fi signal.” For many of these patrons, the library is their main source of internet access.⁴⁰ As the COVID-19 pandemic forced critical services and interactions online, and as many people lost jobs, reliable and free or low-cost internet access became more important than ever. Libraries expanded their access by offering 24-hour Wi-Fi and often expanding coverage to the parking lot and immediate surrounding areas, and adjusted to pandemic circumstances in many other ways, with the needs of newly vulnerable populations highly visible.

Vulnerable community members use the library as their main source of internet access. For many people lacking home connectivity or a mobile subscription with a data plan, the public library is the only accessible space to provide free internet access to all patrons.⁴¹ Accessing the internet now means accessing services previously provided in person, and arguably it also means a more diverse array of services. As a main public access provider for reliable, high-speed internet, the libraries’ role in bridging the digital divide within a navigator format becomes more challenging because the requests for connectivity, training, devices, and assessment are broader in scope. This adds demands to library resources and staff, which in turn may affect how new programs are implemented.

Our second research question builds on the first: what dynamics or issues contribute to how public libraries implement a Digital Navigator program? Libraries adopting Digital Navigator programs would require certain external resources such as community support, political and financial capital, technological resources, human capital in the form of skilled staff as well as internal resources such as champions to position the library to do something challenging, alongside partnerships and collaborations, as per Salt Lake City. Understanding the broader context as well as narrower organizational needs and practices can help in broad efforts to structure effective programs.

Research Design and Implementation

When the Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC) initiated a grant program to award funding to public libraries for launching Digital Navigator programs in 2021, it had the Salt Lake City model in mind. Its “Notice of Funding Opportunity for Digital Navigator Programs” specified that libraries identify local needs and that they include partnerships with local organizations that could contribute and consider all the elements such as providing devices, dedicated staff, that would be useful. Defining the specifics of what the program would look like was left to the libraries themselves, but the vision suggests that Digital Navigator work is not identical to normal staff librarian duties. TSLAC sought to provide support to libraries interested in initiating these efforts to tackle digital inclusion and hired a part-time consultant to support grantees’ digital literacy efforts and materials.⁴² This program provides the data for us to investigate our research questions.

Ten public libraries responded to the Request for Proposals, and all ten were funded for a 1-year, Digital Navigator program. The grantees represented a mix of large (City of Austin and Harris County), medium-sized (Lubbock, Brownsville, Mercedes), and smaller and often rural libraries (Pottsboro; Martindale; Lakehills; Dublin; Wilson County). TSLAC expected grantees to attend monthly online “cohort meetings” with TSLAC staff and the contracted literacy expert, hoping to create a community of practice among them that could assist with issues or problems. Each site filed quarterly reports. Although all libraries planned to mount new programs, the outlines of each effort varied in their proposals, with some emphasizing staffing, others prioritizing loaning and providing devices, and others emphasizing training.⁴³

Our first research question assesses the extent to which libraries in the sample reproduced the elements of the Digital Navigator model as embodied in the Salt Lake City program. That model includes conducting a local needs assessment; developing partnerships; launching digital literacy classes; providing one-on-one instruction; providing individual assistance with digital skills or tasks; lending devices; enhancing home-based connectivity as with hotspots or other mechanisms associated with the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).⁴⁴

Our second research question examines the implementation aspects of the grants. These funds came with obligations to work with the state agency in procurement, and the funding was time-delimited (1-year grants). Each grantee had its own internal processing and support structures, and unique histories with their communities. Some already had digital literacy training materials. We sought to investigate any common strategies, strengths, and weaknesses in implementing the programs.

We visited all ten sites in person and interviewed the library personnel who designed or ran these programs, and we conducted additional Zoom interviews with a subset of project staff and community partner staff members, sometimes preliminary to our in-person visits.⁴⁵ The onsite visits and interviews enabled us to get a better picture of the local communities and the library facilities and to meet staff. We also interviewed the external digital literacy consultant and the TSLAC grant management personnel. Our team reviewed the video recordings of the cohort meetings among the grantees and the TSLAC program manager to get a sense of the information exchanges and the problems that emerged throughout the grant. In total, we conducted 30 interviews using Zoom and face-to-face visits with library directors, grant writers, community partners, and trainers at each site who were associated with these grants, as well as other personnel. We also sat in on Digital Navigator classes at a handful of sites.

The interviews were transcribed and analyzed for how Digital Navigator program components were useful and conformed to the Digital Navigator model, and for implementation issues. Our research used semi-structured questions to investigate factors affecting how programs were initiated, how they may have changed over the grant duration, and the challenges faced in launching these 1-year grants.

We coded the interviews using the qualitative analysis software atlas.ti, identifying the comments that reflected on program elements and implementation (see codebook in  Appendix 1). As categories emerged from our data, what libraries themselves could influence, and what they simply had to work with in terms of external demands, that is, circumstances beyond their control, became apparent. These became analytic categories for our interview data. Many responses are clustered into what emerged as internal and external dimensions and organizational dependencies. The coded data offered insights on what components of the ideal Digital Navigator models proved to be attainable and useful or not, our first question, and captured implementation dilemmas, our second research question.

Table 1 summarizes each participating site and the communities served by those recipients. The county poverty rates reflect regions much bigger than the service territories of the libraries, but they convey general conditions in the area; populations in South Texas, known as “The Valley,” have lower median household income levels. Relative rurality suggests the rural dynamics at work, which implies something about resource allocations and the distances people face in order to conduct basic daily business.⁴⁶ Harris County, serving Houston, is mostly metro, whereas Martindale (population of 1200), Lakehills, and Dublin are the most rural. Digital distress, a composite measure, conveys a county’s digital service quality and flags potential digital divides. As is evident, the sites were mixed in terms of digital capabilities. The final column notes the grant amounts awarded.⁴⁷

Findings

The following sections establish our findings from the interviews, site visits, and cohort meeting recordings with each library. Two research questions guide the themes presented in this article: What components of the Salt Lake City Digital Navigator model were or were not adopted in this sample (and why)? What factors affected how libraries implemented a Digital Navigator program? Throughout our analysis, we reference the ideas and categories that emerged as being most significant in our interviews. Both the implementation facets and the usability of the Digital Navigator model guided our interviews.

Adopting the Digital Navigator Model

The Digital Navigator model takes a holistic approach to addressing the digital divide by focusing on all aspects of the digital inclusion process. As noted earlier, Digital Navigators provide personalized support to community members in at least three ways: cultivating digital literacy, supplying devices, and providing home connectivity. Table 2 displays elements of the basic Digital Navigator model. We identify six major components of the model and several ways to execute within those categories: digital literacy efforts; providing devices; facilitating home connectivity; development partnerships, conducting a needs assessment; and marketing the program.

In their proposals, the libraries in this sample largely framed their solutions around these approaches. One distinctive difference between the ideal, comprehensive model and how the implementation actually unfolded, however, was that these libraries typically adopted a subset of the model’s elements rather than doing everything simultaneously. We examine different components below and investigate their implementation experiences in the following sections. Table 3 breaks down which libraries included specific components of the Digital Navigator model.

(1) Digital Literacy. Creating and teaching classes, offered on a schedule, was the most widely adopted component of Digital Navigator programs, with nine of the sites adopting that practice. (In fact, many libraries had been offering digital training classes before they received grant money.) Grant funds enabled them to either hire staff or adopt a regular or more robust schedule for teaching, but few of those staff were dedicated Digital Navigators. Five of the sites developed options for individual assistance with digital skills, with four of them scheduling appointments and only one (Harris County) committing to reserving staff time for meeting patrons more spontaneously as they needed help. Maintaining someone who was solely dedicated to responding to ad hoc questions and needs was a challenge because smaller libraries generally have fewer staff, meaning that a handful of people typically execute many duties. One Harris County interviewee remarked that these dedicated navigators had to be explicitly identified as attached to the Digital Navigator program and segregated from other tasks because even in a large library system there was an inclination to apply staff time to whatever needed attention within the library.

Plans changed as some of the training challenges materialized. As one interviewee put it, “We had a Plan, it looked great . . . until we began to implement. We are monitoring, tweaking, sometimes torquing! Like many of you, we are literally building the plane as we fly it.” For example, classes being offered on a schedule translated into continuity and predictability for staff and for scheduling; more spontaneous help services, a component of a Digital Navigator model, were somewhat more difficult in terms of allocating staff time. Libraries gravitated easily to offering digital literacy classes as well because several of them already had been offering classes. Although several sites had anticipated offering individualized instruction, only one implemented a model of making staff available consistently for spontaneous patron needs. Another four libraries scheduled individual appointments with patrons to resolve questions. Austin Public Library never launched its Digital Navigator training program through this grant, but it did spend some of its money on supplies.⁴⁸

Scheduled and predictable digital literacy classes were the most offered component of these programs. Often students for those classes included people already using the library, rather than people entirely new to the facilities. Two libraries in smaller communities, Lakehills and Pottsboro, actively recruited new participants from outside the existing library base via partnerships for classes or device giveaways. Two fortuitous partnerships for Pottsboro with a nursing home and nonprofit House of Eli created new opportunities for one-on-one instruction.

(2) Devices. Most libraries also addressed device needs either by giving out computers (often Chromebooks, in six libraries) or by loaning computers (three libraries). Some declined to publicize these device programs widely lest they disappoint a surge in demand. As discussed later, providing equipment was difficult in part because procurement and accounting issues substantially delayed their arrival at the sites.

(3) Connectivity. Enhancing home connectivity was challenging, and the pandemic environment had made connectivity all the more important. Some of the ten libraries already had received funds through the FCC’s Emergency Connectivity Fund to purchase Wi-Fi hotspots and in-library equipment including computers. Either providing or loaning hotspots was the most frequent connectivity initiative at these sites under the Digital Navigator program, with five sites initiating these loans. One librarian commented that they had assembled “connectivity kits,” with a laptop, a mouse, and a hotspot so that people could simply pick up a kit. However, they learned that people “did not want the laptops and the mouse—they want the hotspot because when we live out in the country, it’s spotty, you may or may not get [a signal].” Indeed, offering hotspots frequently resulted in waiting lists because demand was high. Their portability makes their use in rural regions, where there may be more driving and longer distances from place to place, and fewer other sites offering Wi-Fi, even more valuable. Although there was some administrative interest in how libraries might facilitate households signing up for a federal program called the ACP, none of these libraries mentioned their activity with it.⁴⁹ ACP was launched in late 2022, toward the end of the TSLAC grant period.

(4) Partnerships. Partnerships, a cornerstone of the Salt Lake program, were also expected in the TSLAC grant programs. Although many libraries anticipated forging partnerships with other city or civil society and faith-based organizations, that process was more difficult than some anticipated. Some libraries lacked close ties to local organizations, and in at least one case an anticipated partner simply failed to collaborate. In one larger community, many businesses were generous with technology donations, but the net result was that the library had difficulties getting the equipment out to the library patrons because it was a chore to establish a process and to staff that process. That partnership was limited to the partner providing technology. At the time of our visit after the program closed, some of those donated computers still rested in a closet.

Four sites appeared highly successful in building close relationships with other organizations that, in some cases, assisted in technology distribution programs and served as alternative sites for training by Digital Navigators. A fifth site had identified a new potential partnership toward the end of its grant, and although it had not yielded more than goodwill at the time of our data gathering, the library staff were excited about its promise. In the case of larger libraries like Austin and Harris County, with so many potential businesses and organizations in the community, partnerships would seem to be easier. Two of the smaller sites created partnerships serendipitously simply by trying to reach out and liaise with other organizations. They lacked a targeted plan to create a relationship with them, but rather conveyed an awareness and openness to new possibilities. We note that in three faith-based organizations sometimes provided the people who wanted digital training, and they also could offer a local and familiar site for the participants. One ongoing class in Harris County was the product of interacting with a local church.

(5) Assessment. All ten libraries did offer a needs assessment of their communities in their proposals; it was a requirement in the Notice Of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). However, the depth of the needs assessment varied. For example, one library used the Gates Foundation’s Edge Benchmark tool to do a detailed breakdown of their library’s capacity and community needs. Another highly urban library monitored internal computer and Wi-Fi use, and it later used that data to determine where among its many branches training resources should be located. Using in-house data was a significant development because the library had started by sending trainers to numerous branches without regard to a needs assessment or local conditions. One of the smaller communities developed some asset mapping and built on the results of an earlier program dedicated to cultivating more technology awareness among staff; they concluded that they had to change their approach because they were inadvertently creating barriers to using the internet. After scrutinizing the data, the libraries recalibrated training. Another larger library had a city resident survey from the local university plus two local listening sessions around which to design services. Smaller libraries often reproduced census data for their region in order to characterize the outlines of the local digital divide.

The bigger question with a needs assessment concerns the extent to which it figures into the actual program. Here the Harris County system’s use of Wi-Fi usage stands out because that data directly led to resource assignments. Also, the Edge benchmark tool appeared to be helpful in the much smaller library using it. However, in other cases, when libraries decided to focus on offering classes, and especially when they opted to target people already using the library, the formal needs assessment process did not provide guidance.

(6) Marketing. Eight of the libraries did some marketing of the Digital Navigator program. Two smaller and one larger library (Lubbock) used legacy media such as local radio and newspapers, and even in one case (Pottsboro), developed a TV commercial for the program. Pamphlets and signage were present for one of the smaller libraries (Lakehills). Most libraries had some social media presence, but only one (Mercedes) reported using it to promote the Digital Navigator offerings. Two sites, Dublin and Brownsville, used neither traditional media nor social media to announce their offerings.

These results contrast with some of the anticipated marketing that the grantees’ plans had offered. Several anticipated reaching out to many local organizations or even to neighborhoods that were targeted as needing Digital Navigator services based on census data. In many cases, roadblocks appeared, preventing the implementation of more strategic and robust marketing plans. These roadblocks included limited staff time or actual program shifts from recruiting from external communities to serving existing, internal constituencies. For example, one site anticipated visiting a targeted neighborhood and hanging announcements on doors as a way to alert the residents to the library programs. However, that would have taken quite a bit of effort. In another example, a library thought it had the cooperation of a local housing group but when the grant was funded, that group declined to participate after all.

Implementing the Program: What factors contributed to how the grant was implemented?

The library personnel identified many processes and situations that affected how they could implement their plans. Some of them were out of their control. For example, if their grant had funds to hire people, the labor market itself dictated who would apply for jobs. The pandemic created labor shortages in many fields. Some factors are related to how municipal (or county) organizations deal with grants: Bureaucracies have their own schedules and requirements, and sometimes grants throw a monkey wrench into “normal” processes by adding new tasks for staff. We discuss some of the factors that interviewees identified as significant to their Digital Navigator programs as they emerged from our interviews, onsite discussions, and review of the cohort meetings. We characterize some of them as internal or external to emphasize the matter of control and authority. That characterization becomes meaningful in terms of identifying organizational resource dependencies that can be addressed within the library or library system, a point taken up in our conclusion. Table 4 includes comments that contribute to our findings.

Internal Factors

Several internal organizational factors influenced how the libraries implemented the Digital Navigator grant. The main contributing factors include library staff time, the strength of established community partnerships, and the challenges of balancing the role of the Digital Navigator alongside other duties inside a library setting.

Library Staff Time, Hiring Difficulties

Limited staff numbers challenged all ten libraries. Each site mentioned limited funds to hire staff in allocated annual budgets, not an uncommon problem in US libraries. Although some grants support upgrades in furniture or equipment, they often prohibit the funding of staff.⁵⁰ Within our sample, two libraries had directors who operated as volunteers, with one library director taking an annual salary of $1 for tax purposes. This situation demonstrates the problem of staff funding. Another librarian offered that owing to budget cuts, she could not backfill one of three full-time positions after a librarian retired. The result was just two full-time librarians and some part-time staff managing three separate branches.

What was surprising is that a grant that would fund additional staff, as in the current Digital Navigator opportunity, also introduced some hiring difficulties. Owing to this limited staff environment, libraries reported that it was difficult for them to get the necessary support from frontline staff for taking on the “extra” duties associated with a new grant. Library staff hours were fully booked with current programming and day-to-day responsibilities. One grant manager commented that she and another administrator implemented the entire Digital Navigator grant from beginning to end because support from other staff members was in short supply. In other words, even new funding means more work, and existing staff are already fully obligated.

Many interviewees also noted that it was difficult to hire new staff using the grant money because of its 1-year duration, a factor also discussed below. Limited staff resulted in downsized scope and program changes as the year passed. While the Digital Navigator grant offered a rare opportunity to hire much-needed additional staff, the short length of the grant (1 year) prevented many of the libraries from pursuing that strategy.

Working with Partners

To address capacity constraints, the Digital Navigator grant specifically asked grantees to work closely with community partners and name potential partners in their proposal. In one success story, a library director successfully leveraged community partnerships to identify the target recipients of their Digital Navigator program and was able to serve the neediest members of her community. This director had cultivated these partnerships previously and nurtured them over time.

However, most of the libraries framed partners in more hypothetical terms in their proposals. They intended to collaborate with a variety of partners, such as the local goodwill, school districts, and housing authorities, but most failed owing to lack of interest or capacity on the partner’s side. The intended partnerships did not have a strong foundation and were not aligned strategically with the goals of the Digital Navigator program. For example, one interviewee mentioned that after some initial interest from the local housing authority, they reached out several times but struggled to connect:

Good intentions simply do not always result in action. The success of these partnerships for this grant program seemed primarily related to whether they were established prior to the grant and whether the library and the intended partner had the capacity to cultivate the relationship.

Establishing and fostering community relationships with partner organizations that align with strategic program goals require time that library staff may lack. Although the libraries actively worked with community partners to provide other ongoing services and programs, cultivating additional partnerships proved challenging.

Balancing the Role of the Digital Navigator with Routine Needs

Librarians were confronted with balancing their current role with the additional responsibilities as a Digital Navigator. One staff member set up appointments for one-on-one consultations to negotiate this challenge. Providing ad hoc individual digital assistance was difficult when managing multiple roles and responsibilities. This was why many libraries offered classes or required appointments.

Even libraries that successfully hired dedicated Digital Navigators struggled to set boundaries around their responsibilities. One library administrator mentioned reminding other library staff several times that Digital Navigators are not librarians and are not available for general library tasks:

External Factors

External factors also played a role in the Digital Navigator program. Consistent themes around the pace of procurement, employment problems, and readjusting initial visions of community needs came up within libraries both large and small.

Procurement

Procurement presented a challenge for nearly every grant recipient. For example, TSLAC’s own contract process caused delays to the libraries’ potential purchases. Although the library provides public Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi extenders, shifting from providing connectivity to providing devices represents a significant change in the role of the library. One library specifically identified the reimbursement procurement process and the 1-year time limit as its two major challenges. Owing to the 1-year time limit, that library did not consider hiring additional staff. This in turn affected how the library structured their Digital Navigator program and the program’s goals because everything had to be achievable within her staffing plan.

The reimbursement process also affected the turnaround time for providing devices. The anticipation was initially 1 month to order and receive devices, but the turnaround time was closer to 3 to 4 months. Another library struggled to find the funds to make the initial purchase (from internal funds) and had to make sure they would be reimbursed in a timely fashion. Another library did leverage its existing relationships with key partners and distribute devices to more than 50 members of the community, but reimbursement delays associated with procurement impacted the turnaround time for providing devices.

The reimbursement model associated with procuring devices impeded timely success. One rural library struggled to find the funds to make the initial purchase and had to make sure they would be reimbursed in a timely fashion. The institutions needed a signed contract in hand before starting the procurement process because purchases were reimbursement based. Procurement was also an internal issue, with several libraries having complicated and long internal processes. External and internal procurement compounded into longer delays, which in turn affected the promises libraries wanted to make to patrons as part of their programs.

Employment

Employing the right person for the Digital Navigator position was challenging. One library posted a job opening for Digital Navigators and received twenty applicants. Despite hiring four candidates, the library was only able to retain two candidates for their Digital Navigator program. Another library found that hiring a Digital Navigator was a key challenge owing to the competitive job market, the location of certain libraries where the work would occur, and the short term of the grant. Nearly all recipients that did hire Digital Navigators struggled to find appropriate candidates and dealt with rapid turnover. In some instances, libraries had their Digital Navigators initially serve all branch libraries but settled on situating them at specific locations.

Other libraries found that hiring was difficult owing to the limited nature of the grant, their rural location, and the competitive labor climate at the time. For example, in one case, the library was able to hire a Digital Navigator, but that person left before the end of the grant period owing to the absence of a guaranteed position after 1 year. On top of that, this individual’s specialty was music librarianship. Other libraries noted that the limited term grant made hiring and sustaining the program challenging. Many highlighted that a longer timetable or option for continuation would have alleviated this challenge. Even larger libraries where one might expect more institutional slack to create opportunities for routine hiring echoed similar challenges. Temporary employment carried other challenges. Libraries at times struggled to retain employees for lack of benefits. Digital Navigators departed before the grant ended for employment that offered retirement and health insurance. As one interviewee observed, “We ended up in a situation where we couldn’t create the positions [beyond the one year period of the grant]. And that was another thing that was frustrating. So that meant that these [Digital Navigators], rightfully so, began leaving.”

Community Challenges

Libraries catered to their specific and known patrons to close the digital divide and promote digital equity. For some, this meant that new training materials had to be tailored to their unique environments. Two of the libraries within the study served primarily Spanish-speaking patrons and produced social media content in Spanish to attract patrons to the library. These libraries offered programming in English and Spanish and had Spanish speakers on hand to provide support for Digital Navigation.

Some libraries noted the specific challenges in serving senior citizens. One called attention to the fact that the pandemic was challenging for senior citizens, many of whom are on fixed income and unable to afford home connectivity. That library provided hotspots to senior citizens so they could access the internet from home. Gender did not emerge as a major subtheme for the Digital Navigation, but one library specifically worked with domestic violence victims on their Digital Navigation needs. That library provided hardware and instructional support. The most common requests for help they fielded included accessing email, applying for jobs, and navigating government benefits websites.

Discussion and Conclusions

The digital divide remains a challenge, and everything about it was heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Digital Navigator model represents a new approach to solving the digital divide by ideally targeting the most impacted communities through personalized and holistic support including devices, access, training, and more. The results from the investigation into the Texas Digital Navigator library grant program explored how ten libraries responded to the opportunity to mount this approach to address their communities’ needs.

The ten libraries that applied for and received grant funding for their programs had planned to implement most or several elements of the classic Digital Navigator model, but ultimately focused on just a few, most prominently teaching classes (rather than offering one-on-one training) and loaning or providing devices enabling home connectivity through hotspots (five libraries) and computers or tablets (nine libraries). Their methods combined expedience and ways to optimize the service aspects they could control, for example, by focusing on people who already were coming to the library and needed skills training, and by scheduling classes that could address many peoples’ needs at one time rather than adjusting to an “as needed” model. This obviated the need for recruiting “new” people (or people who were not visiting the library) for their programs, even if that recruitment might have been a piece of the needs assessment, and it reduced staffing obligations from an “on call” model to scheduled teaching. Our data highlight the staffing tasks libraries face when they expand services and access in a digital environment, illustrating that the gap between the complex challenges of the digital divide and finite library resources can be large. However, the data also illustrate that libraries found ways to adapt.

Salt Lake City Public Library showcases an ideal implementation of the Digital Navigator program and was developed in a much different environment than the Texas programs. Its attention to digital inclusion crossed a longer time period, its broad partnership and resources grew over many years, and community-wide commitment solidified by the time it launched Digital Navigator programs. The Texas libraries, however, faced organizational issues, complicated community dynamics, and procurement delays, conditions that also doubtless would be common in other public libraries trying to mount a comprehensive digital inclusion effort. The libraries in this sample for the most part did not have the long and cohesive record of digital inclusion activities evidenced in the model Salt Lake City program; we expect this is typical of smaller libraries. Generally, they did not tackle digital inclusion on all fronts concurrently. All libraries, big and small, were challenged by the grant, and each adjusted and found some success in unique accomplishments.

The challenges were both internal and external. The pandemic affected the job market and opportunities to hire staff, and working with a state agency in procurement processes impaired the ability to accomplish everything the libraries had hoped for in the grant’s brief time span of 1 year. Unique tasks associated with serving populations that required specialized techniques or materials such as Spanish language or other languages also figured into the libraries’ work. These external situations required some adaptations.

Ultimately, each library had distinctive definitions of digital inclusion needs and success based on these factors. Each one did believe its program was successful even if it did not recreate the Digital Navigator ideal. A successful Digital Navigator program will likely look different from place to place depending on internal and external factors outside a public library’s control, such as location, historical funding and funding processes, and even local politics. Also, each Texas library highlighted the intangible qualities of success like encouraging community engagement and supporting community group interaction, outcomes more difficult to measure and that go beyond common metrics such as “number of people served.” In the wake of pandemic-induced isolation, there was value in people getting together, and these programs, with their classes and attention to the unique circumstances of individuals, became welcome occasions for social support.

Even with limited resources and restrictions to the grant, almost all the Texas libraries implemented a portion of the Digital Navigator model and offered something positive in their communities. Every interviewee shared a personal story of success where a patron was profoundly impacted by their Digital Navigator program. That said, narrowing the digital divide cannot be solved by libraries alone. Public libraries provide an essential and valuable service by offering public access to high-speed internet and assistance with the digital search for information. In the broader scheme, libraries may not be as well suited for solving home-based connectivity, a bigger problem requiring local advocacy skills, new physical infrastructure, and possibly new regulation.

Finally, we consider that only ten libraries applied for the Digital Navigator grant. We learned that the State Library expected more applicants. For many libraries, the program presented challenges, and they were sufficiently entrepreneurial to cope with them. From a policy standpoint, designing programs that can support new ventures within a longer timeline and with some assistance for needs assessment, marketing, and specialized materials may be optimal. Such programs might be rolled into the state plans associated with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that are now taking shape to remedy digital inclusion in the United States. These same amendments could also work well in other countries’ libraries. We are mindful that the libraries in this sample may not be similar to libraries elsewhere in terms of their experience with digital inclusion programs; other locations may be better positioned to adopt Digital Navigator programs in their entirety. However, we expect that many smaller libraries or libraries in small communities would face circumstances similar to those in Texas.

The policy community also might consider ways they can help libraries to cultivate strong community partners. The most effective Digital Navigator programs were able to draw on support from established community partners that were cultivated over time through ongoing engagement; in many cases, they were crucial to supplement library bandwidth and skills gaps. Public libraries can then activate their established relationships when new program opportunities emerge and more effectively leverage these resources to provide Digital Navigator services. Funders might consider extending grant timelines to account for procurement and new program implementation. All grantees stated the short, 1-year timeline of the grant as a challenge to the successful implementation of their Digital Navigator grant. Extending the timeline to 2 years or including an option to renew the grant could allow libraries to adjust to program challenges and better understand the impact of their program. Sponsors also might provide guidelines and definitions for Digital Navigators program components. Owing to the newness of the Digital Navigator concept, all the libraries in this sample struggled to understand what constitutes a successful Digital Navigator program. State agencies and policymakers can help define this concept more clearly with recommended Key Performance Indicators and program elements.

Libraries continue to provide a valuable and essential service as a public space for information access, especially in an increasingly digital world. Their histories and the public confidence they command mark them as important pieces in policies redressing connectivity and literacy gaps. High-speed internet for essential services such as health care, job applications, education, and other services is more critical than ever. Libraries are a crucial piece to bridging the digital divide, but their capabilities must be supported within the context of their resources and mission.

Appendix 1: Digital Navigator Interview Codebook

Notes

Bibliography