In 2021-22, The Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC) awarded one-year American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grants to 10 Texas public libraries to support Digital Navigator programs. Afterwards, TSLAC funded a research study by UT Austin’s Technology and Information Policy Institute (TIPI) to evaluate the grant. The researchers, Sharon Strover, Whitney Nelson, and Sheila Lalwani, later published their findings in a July 2024 academic research paper for the Journal of Information Policy that summarized the strengths and weaknesses of the program and highlighted the approach each library took to implement it.

The research explores how the 10 Texas libraries, ranging from small rural to large metropolitan institutions, launched Digital Navigator programs to bridge the gap. These programs aimed to address the challenges of digital inclusion by offering tailored support for those lacking connectivity, devices, and digital skills.

What is a Digital Navigator?

A Digital Navigator provides individualized or small group assistance to community members, or specific eligible groups, who need affordable home internet service, affordable internet-capable devices, and/or coaching in introductory digital skills in order to become effective home internet users. This assistance is provided primarily by voice telephone but may also include email, text, video chat, and other communication methods that work for the learner.

Program Findings

Ten Texas libraries were funded by TSLAC for a one-year Digital Navigator program. They 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). 

The six major components of the program, along with some of TIPI’s findings, were as follows:

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. 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.
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 10 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. 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.
4. Partnerships – 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. 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. 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.
5. Assessments – All 10 libraries did offer a needs assessment of their communities in their proposals. 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. 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.
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. Several anticipated reaching out to many local organizations or even to neighborhoods that were targeted as needing Digital Navigator services based on census data. 

There were many issues and challenges that were discovered over the course of the program. Below are some excerpts taken from the research article. 

Library Staff Capacity and Hiring Difficulties

Limited staff numbers challenged all 10 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. 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.

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. Many interviewees also noted that it was difficult to hire new staff using the grant money because of its one-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 (one 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. Most libraries 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. 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.

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 one-year time limit as its two major challenges. Owing to the one-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 its staffing plan. The reimbursement process also affected the turnaround time for providing devices. The anticipation was initially one 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. 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.

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. 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. Libraries also struggled to retain employees for lack of benefits. Digital Navigators departed before the grant ended for employment that offered retirement and health insurance.

Community Challenges

Many libraries catered to their specific and known patrons to close the digital divide and promote digital equity in lieu of seeking out new patrons. 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 and serve patrons in 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 forsenior 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.

Conclusion:

Libraries are evolving into key players in the fight against the digital divide by providing internet access and digital literacy programs. Finding, training and funding Digital Navigators are critical components of this process. The digital divide remains a challenge, but the Digital Navigator model represents a new solution by ideally targeting the most impacted communities through personalized and holistic support including devices, access, training, and more. It’s becoming increasingly clear that there are many moving parts that have to be aligned correctly, and timed precisely, for any Digital Navigator program to be successful. TSLAC will continue to modify, and streamline grant funded programs to suit the needs of Texas library patrons.

You can read the full research article here.

About TIPI

The Technology and Information Policy Institute (TIPI) was established in 1996 to research imbalances and provide insights that inform public policies and programs focused on digital inclusion for everyone. Housed in the Moody College of Communication, the institute also investigates the social impacts of digital media, growing concerns around disasters and risk, and artificial-intelligence in the future of work. In addition to sponsoring educational programs and conferences, the institute shares its world-class expertise in hopes of increasing access to communication technologies, and thus vastly improve technology literacy, standards of living, and innovation.