Get documents about "Get Digital - Niace
Document Sample
Get Digital
Impact Study
February 2012
Helen Plant, Fiona Aldridge, Sara Bosley, Lorraine Casey,
Emily Jones, Caroline Law, Joyce Black
Working for more and different adult learners
NIACE (The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, England and
Wales). A company limited by guarantee registered no. 2603322 and
registered charity no. 1002775, Registered address: 21 De Montfort Street,
Leicester, LE1 7GE, UK
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following individuals for their advice, support and suggestions
during the period of the study:
Members of the external advisory group: Mike Cushman (London School of
Economics), Ellen Helsper (London School of Economics), Bernadette Bartlam
(Keele University), Andy Payne (Essex County Council), Peter Daly (ERoSH),
Nancy Johnston (Age UK).
Chris O’Leary, Chris Fox, and Jo Linney of Cassiopeia Consultancy, who acted as
peer reviewers for the final report.
Representatives from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department
for Communities and Local Government
Colleagues from Digital Unite and NIACE involved in the Get Digital programme,
and the research interns who contributed to the impact study.
We also wish to thank all the residents, staff, managers, tutors and partners who
contributed to this study by completing questionnaires and taking part in case study
interviews and focus groups.
Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Aim and objectives ........................................................................................ 7
2. The Get Digital Programme .............................................................................. 11
2.1 Background and context ............................................................................. 11
2.1.1 Policy context: ageing and the digital divide ................................................ 11
2.2.2 Tackling older people’s digital exclusion ..................................................... 13
2.2.3 The role of sheltered housing ...................................................................... 15
2.2 Descriptive overview of the Get Digital programme’s aim and objectives,
processes and activities ........................................................................................... 17
3. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Quantitative data ......................................................................................... 21
3.2 Qualitative data ........................................................................................... 24
3.3 Scope and limitations of the evaluation ....................................................... 24
4. Implementation and delivery ............................................................................. 28
4.1 Findings ...................................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 Integrating the elements .............................................................................. 28
4.1.2 Making the learning relevant ....................................................................... 30
3
4.1.3 Learner involvement in project planning and design ................................... 34
4.1.4 Flexible pace and structure ......................................................................... 36
4.1.5 Encouragement to practise ......................................................................... 38
4.1.6 Committed individuals to make it work ........................................................ 41
4.1.7 Landlord commitment .................................................................................. 42
4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................... 43
4.2.1 A learner-centred approach ........................................................................ 43
4.2.2 Effective sources of help and support ......................................................... 46
4.2.3 Scheme contexts ......................................................................................... 48
5. Benefits and impact........................................................................................... 50
5.1 Learner starting points and expectations .................................................... 50
5.1.1 Findings ...................................................................................................... 50
5.1.2 Discussion ................................................................................................... 61
5.2 Outcomes for learners ................................................................................. 62
5.2.1 Findings ...................................................................................................... 63
5.2.2 Discussion ................................................................................................... 87
5.3 Outcomes for landlords and schemes ......................................................... 93
5.3.1 Findings ...................................................................................................... 93
4
5.3.2 Discussion ................................................................................................... 97
5.4 Outcomes for community partners .............................................................. 98
5.4.1 Findings ...................................................................................................... 98
5.4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................... 99
6. Sustainability and legacy ................................................................................. 102
6.1 Findings .................................................................................................... 103
6.1.1 Strategic commitment from landlord.......................................................... 103
6.1.2 Self-organised learning groups ................................................................. 104
5.3 Developing community partnerships ......................................................... 106
6.2 Discussion ................................................................................................. 109
6. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 113
6.2 Final reflections ......................................................................................... 119
7. References ...................................................................................................... 121
Appendix 1: Methodology ....................................................................................... 125
Appendix 1a Learners’ Time 1 questionnaire ......................................................... 140
Appendix 1b Learners’ Time 2 questionnaire ......................................................... 165
Appendix 1c Learners’ Time 3 questionnaire ......................................................... 192
Appendix 1d Scheme contacts’ Time 1 questionnaire ............................................ 225
5
Appendix 1f Scheme contacts’ Time 3 questionnaire ............................................. 240
Appendix 1g: Tutors’ online questionnaire ............................................................. 266
Appendix 1h: Wave 3 online questionnaire ............................................................ 277
Appendix 1i: Learners’ Time 1 focus group ............................................................ 285
Appendix 1j: Learners’ Time 2 focus group ............................................................ 288
Appendix 1k: Scheme contact interview ................................................................. 291
Appendix 1l: Landlord interview ............................................................................. 295
Appendix 1m: Tutor interview ................................................................................. 298
Appendix 1n: Community partner interview ............................................................ 301
Appendix 2 – Data tables ....................................................................................... 304
6
1. Introduction
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) commissioned the National Institute of
Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) to conduct a study on the impact of the Get
Digital Programme, a digital inclusion project to provide digital skills for older people
living in sheltered housing schemes across England.
1.1 Aim and objectives
The aim of this study was to assess the benefits of the Get Digital Programme and to
identify its critical success factors.
The key objectives, agreed at the outset of the evaluation, were:
1. To assess whether equipment and training was in place and operating
effectively.
2. To assess behavioural and attitudinal changes of participating sheltered
housing residents in relation to information and communication technologies
(ICT).
3. To assess the perceived impact on participating residents, giving particular
attention to relevant Public Service Agreement1 quality of life indicators2
1
PSA indicators were associated with the previous administration and are no
longerpart of the public policy framework. They have therefore not been used as a
category of analysis within this report.
2
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/content/19/psa-indicators
7
relating to poverty, health, satisfaction with home and neighbourhood and
support for independent living.
4. To assess the contribution to digital inclusion of the different elements of the
programme, including delivery and support models, online learning materials
and learning support services, such as the toolkit and website.
5. To identify to ministers the key success factors and benefits through reports
based on valid and reliable research methods and clear findings.
6. To assess the public value of investment in digital skills for older people living
in sheltered housing schemes, in order to support the development of a
business case for further investment and the implications for other services.
7. To identify approaches and resources for enabling sustainability.
8. To assess the impact of the programme on other stakeholders including
Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and partners.
Our data collection and analysis has been shaped by these objectives, and we return
explicitly to them in the conclusion.
The rationale for the Get Digital programme derived from policy priorities of the
previous government, most significantly Building a Society for all Ages (HM
Government, 2009) and Digital Britain (DCMS and BIS, 2009). As the impact study
progressed however, significant changes occurred to both the policy landscape and
economic climate in which the programme operated. Despite these contextual
changes however, digital inclusion remains an important focus for government policy
and this evaluation has much to contribute to ongoing policy development. In order
to achieve this, the evaluation team has sought, where possible, to analyse data and
frame key messages in ways that can inform current policy development. In doing
so, we have been grateful for the insights and suggestions of the project’s external
advisory group.
8
When Get Digital was initially launched, it was envisaged that the digital inclusion
agenda in sheltered housing would be taken forward by local authorities. The impact
study was therefore designed to support the development of a strong business case
for future funding at local level, without further assistance from central government,
and to offer evidence of effective practice to other schemes that were interested in
developing the digital skills of their residents. Since then, the public funding
landscape has changed dramatically, resulting in recognition that the funding and
impetus for this kind of work will have to be secured from landlords. This shift is
reflected both in this study and in the accompanying Rationale for Digital Inclusion by
Landlords (making the case for investment). The Rationale is available at
www.niace.org.uk/current-work/get-digital.
.
9
Section 2:
The Get Digital programme
10
2. The Get Digital Programme
2.1 Background and context
Get Digital was implemented in response to concerns arising at the overlap between
two key social policy agendas: demographic ageing and the digital divide. It was
intended to address well-documented low levels of digital technology use among the
older population, and began from the premise that there are potential benefits for
both individuals and society from supporting older people’s digital inclusion. The
programme’s design was informed by evidence of effective practice in the
development and delivery of digital inclusion projects for older people. This section
summarises these policy and practice contexts.
2.1.1 Policy context: ageing and the digital divide
Life expectancy in the UK is increasing. In 2009 around 17.7 million people were
aged 50 or over and by 2029 this will have increased to 22.9 million (NIACE, 2010).
By 2026, population estimates show that the number of people aged 85 and over will
double and the number of people over 100 will quadruple (Government’s Actuary
Department, 2007). A man who is 65 years old today is likely to live to the age of 82
and his female counterpart until 84. The resultant demographic shift means that
there are now more people aged over 59 years old than there are under 16 years old
(McNair, 2009). This demographic shift has a wide range of social and economic
implications, associated with pressures on housing, health and social care provision;
a potentially widening gap between generations, exacerbated by differential
understanding and use of technology; and threat to the personal, social and
economic wellbeing of older people who lack the resources to maintain a good
quality of life as they age.
Evidence indicates a correlation between age and digital exclusion. A recent
estimate suggests that 9.2 million adults in the UK (18 per cent) have never used the
internet (BIS, 2010), with adults over the age of 65 being most at risk of exclusion. In
2008, only one in three adults aged 65 and over – and one in ten aged 75 and over -
11
was connected to the internet and had the skills to use it (Dutton, W. H., Helsper,
E.J. & Gerber, M.M., 2009).
Being digitally excluded matters. Those who are socially disadvantaged are most
likely to be digitally excluded, and digital exclusion itself reinforces social and
economic exclusion. Research shows that people who do not have access to the
internet, or are unable to use it confidently and safely, are excluded from both the
access to information and services available on the internet, as well as the cost
savings that can be generated (DCMS and BIS, 2009). It has been estimated that
an average household can save £560 a year by being online (PwC, 2009). Being
online provides access to a range of public and commercial services that can
contribute towards securing economic and personal wellbeing, including price
comparison sites, cheaper goods, banking and utilities; leisure, learning and news
services; and communities of interest, social interaction and civic participation.
Many older people are already at risk of social isolation and exclusion from aspects
of daily life, and this is compounded if they are not on line (Dutton, W. H., Helsper,
E.J. & Gerber, M.M., 2009). They are unable to benefit from activities that can
reduce loneliness and isolation, such as improved communication with friends and
family through electronic means, as well as access to information about new and
existing hobbies and interests. Getting on line can contribute towards improved
wellbeing and quality of life. Access to the internet can enable older people to live
independently for longer, for example by facilitating access to tele-health
technologies to manage long-term conditions and chronic illness and by supporting
mental well being, financial and social inclusion (HM Government, 2009).
Tackling digital exclusion has been a policy concern for successive administrations.
The previous government‘s digital inclusion policy, Digital Britain, sought to promote
digital capability and motivate excluded groups to get online (DCMS and BIS, 2009).
The Coalition has retained a clear commitment to expand the use of digital
technologies through publicly-funded provision, to ensure that disadvantaged groups
have access through ‘assisted digital services providers, such as Post Offices, UK
online centres and other local service providers (Cabinet Office, 2011). Indeed,
securing a digitally included and literate population has become recognised as being
12
important in achieving wider government agendas, particularly those associated with
volunteering and community engagement in building the Big Society (Cameron,
2010), civic participation (DCLG, 2010) opening public services (HM Government,
2011) and empowering communities (BIS, 2011); and decentralization and localism .
As part of the Open Public Services White Paper (HM Government, 2011), the
Government has committed itself to design and deliver all information and
transactional services digitally by default, as well as to move towards engaging and
communicating with the public, and offering advice and guidance services, through
digital means. In addition, the Government is also seeking to open up all public
services to greater public accountability and control as a means of improving quality.
In doing so, it recognises that the opportunity to act as informed consumers is
enhanced by access to, and use of, technology. In this climate, tackling digital
exclusion is vital in order to ensure that sections of the UK population, such as older
adults, are not marginalised from accessing government support and services.
2.2.2 Tackling older people’s digital exclusion
The evidence from research and practice on reasons for, patterns of and solutions to
older people’s digital exclusion is not extensive. It is also worth repeating the
frequently made point that older people are not an homogenous group (e.g. McNair,
2009) and this fact is reflected in their diversity of interests, characteristics and
requirements of technology (Roberts, 2009). Age is not the only, and cannot
necessarily be assumed to be the most significant, determinant of individual attitudes
towards technology, being cut across by other factors such as social class and level
of educational attainment (Pew, 2010). Nevertheless, the emerging findings from a
number of studies shed light on the relationship between ageing and digital exclusion
and highlight features of successful inclusion initiatives.
It is generally accepted that the starting point for the development of effective
policies to address digital exclusion must be an understanding of the barriers that
inhibit older people’s engagement with technology. Consequently, a number of
studies over the last decade have focused on questions of accessibility and barriers
to accessing digital technology.
13
Richard Berry (2011) points to two distinct ‘orders’ (Berry, 2011) in relation to digital
exclusion and older people, broadly defined as, ‘material and non-material’ (Berry,
2011)’. The first order relates to ownership or access to technology and the second
to skills and usage. For some people, both orders may apply, while for others it may
be the case that, ‘Even with the materials to go online not everyone possesses the
same skills in using the technology’ (Berry, 2011).
However, there are other ways of categorising barriers to inclusion. In particular, a
distinction may be drawn between practical barriers, which covers factors including
access to kit, cost, exclusion through physical or mental impairment, and lack of
digital skills on the one hand, and attitudinal barriers, which can be summed up as
an ingrained perception that ‘It’s not for me’, on the other hand. Research by Age
Concern/Help the Aged divides older non-users into two such categories: the digitally
excluded, i.e., those ‘who have little or no opportunity of accessing the internet’, and
the digitally dismissive, i.e., those ‘who have (or potentially have) the means but
choose not to.’ The research further concludes that for some being digitally
dismissive was a way to ‘justify lack of confidence’ (Age Concern, 2009). UK online
data suggest that one million over 65-year–olds are connected to, but do not use, the
internet and that the main reason for this selective non-use is that people in this
cohort do its relevance to their lives (cited in Morris, 2009). Wong et al (2009)
confirms that ‘lack of interest’ in technology among older people is a complex issue.
The attitudes that research has shown can act as barriers are varied and range from
people’s not seeing its relevance to them (Cresci et al, 2010) to concern in their
ability to learn and remember the complexities of ICT (Mikkola and Halonen, 2010).
In addition, it appears that many older people resist technology through fear of
pornography or the lack of security associated with the web, while others believe the
internet is only for young people (Dutton et al, 2009).
These studies suggest a complex picture of older people’s digital exclusion which
goes beyond simply lack of access to technology, or even the skills to use it. Some
projects have successfully addressed skills gaps, including those of older people, but
it has been argued that there is insufficient knowledge about the reasons for success
(Morris, 2009) However, not surprisingly, what evidence there is indicates that
14
while there is value in the development of training and support packages for digital
inclusion, these need to be tailored to address the inter-related barriers that older
people experience (see Wong, 2009, Age Concern 2009 and Freshminds, 2009). A
range of ‘success factors’ can be drawn from various studies. The need for
awareness-raising, training, subsidies and on-going help was identified by Age
Concern (2009). A number of studies suggest that older people develop their digital
literacy skills most effectively when they learn informally through friends, family and
self help rather than by attending classes, when they are in small groups with their
peers, and when learning programmes build on their interests and develop their
confidence (Ofcom, 2007; Independent Age, 2010; Freshminds, 2010). The same
studies also identified ongoing support, peer support and involving family as
important in encouraging and sustaining learning, Even among those older people
are open to learning about ICT acknowledge the need for ‘additional practise and
support’ to build their skills and confidence (Nair et al in Blaschke et al, 2009). A
number of studies have stressed the importance of avoiding a technology-centric
approach, and instead maintaining the focus of learning interventions on the needs,
interests and wishes of the older people themselves (Sourbati, 2008 and 2009). This
is a reminder that digital inclusion initiatives should reflect the fundamental principle
of good adult learning and start from ‘where the learner is.’
2.2.3 The role of sheltered housing
Within this policy and practice context, social housing, including sheltered housing,
has been identified as an important site for targeted digital inclusion initiatives. It is
estimated that over 600,000 people, most of them aged over 60, live in sheltered
housing in England. An Independent Review of ICT user skills recommended that all
adults who lack Digital Life Skills3 should be entitled to nine hours’ funded provision
and that local UK Online centres take equipment into settings such as sheltered
housing (Morris, 2009). UK Online has created a range of support and resources
3
Defined as the basic skills needed to use a computer to safely entre, access and communicate basic
information.
15
addressed specifically to the social housing sector.4 The Manifesto for a Networked
Nation (Lane-Fox, 2010) stated that:
“Social housing and residential care home providers should provide internet
access and some ongoing support as a basic utility for their residents” (Lane-
Fox, 2010, p 57).
Evidence collected by Digital Unite suggests that sheltered housing presents
opportunities to develop digital inclusion initiatives that embody the key characteristic
of effective practice in working with older people (CSHS, 2007). In particular:
the community style of living encourages small group, peer learning,
especially when equipment is located in communal areas such as a lounge or
activity room;
learning is informal and takes place in a familiar, quasi-domestic setting which
is less threatening for those who are not confident around computers;
friends and family can be readily involved.
The study stresses the importance of residents’ ‘owning’ an initiative and seeing its
relevance to their lives and interests. It also emphasised the importance of
adequately planning and funding such digital inclusion projects, not only to enable
the introduction of equipment but also to provide appropriately skilled training and
on-going support (CSHS, 2007).
However, while these generic factors indicate an important role for sheltered housing
schemes as settings for digital inclusion initiatives, they should not obscure the great
variety that exists within the sheltered housing sector, and hence the need for
flexibility and approaches that both recognise and reflect this. The sheltered housing
is sector complex and has undergone significant reorganisation and redevelopment
over the last ten years. The nature of schemes, their resident profile and
16
management structure are dependent on a number of factors, including location and
size of the landlord. Sheltered scheme landlords vary and include large national
housing providers, district councils, and small locality based charitable trusts. This
type of accommodation is usually provided through a scheme of 20 to 40 self-
contained flats or bungalows. Most have some kind of alarm system, communal
areas such as a lounge, garden or laundry, and a scheme manager or warden who
looks after the day to day running of the scheme (Age UK, 2010). The majority of
sheltered schemes no longer have resident wardens, and some have the landlord
and support/wardens functions split between different organisations. Whilst some
sheltered schemes have full time non-resident staff, others have mobile wardens
covering a number of schemes, and older people living in their own homes in the
locality. Recent years have also seen the emergence of innovative scheme designs,
with a focus on integrating accommodation for residents across the spectrum of care
and dependency needs, from those who are largely independent to those with
dementia, into single sites. The implications of factors such as the size, staffing and
management structures and resident profiles of individual schemes for the ways in
which they engage with and delivery digital inclusion initiatives has not yet attracted
research and policy attention, but is likely to be significant.
2.2 Descriptive overview of the Get Digital programme’s aim and
objectives, processes and activities
The Get Digital programme was delivered by NIACE and Digital Unite between
February 2010 and April 2011, on behalf of the Department for Communities and
Local Government (DCLG) and was funded by the Department of Work and
Pensions (DWP). NIACE was responsible for project management, the delivery of
specific areas of work, and overall programme delivery. Digital Unite was
contracted for the management, recruitment and training of tutors and support staff,
and the establishment of models of support.
The aim of Get Digital was to develop sustainable business models that could be
used by registered social landlords (RSLs) to incorporate digital access and support
into their service offer to residents. The programme sought to achieve this by:
17
directly supporting older people in sheltered housing to develop digital skills;
building the capacity of the housing sector to integrate access to new
technology into their service offer;
developing models of best practice in sustaining digital skills development for
residents of sheltered housing schemes;
developing a range of toolkit resources to support landlords and schemes to
plan and deliver their own, customised digital inclusion programmes; and
developing a supporting website, with guidance for scheme staff and
landlords.
The programme also sought to engage with a range of stakeholders to initiate,
support and nurture ‘Get Digital partnerships’, and with local people and
organisations, such as schools, UK online centres, local authorities and voluntary
and community sector groups. The generic term ‘community partners’ describes this
wider group, and their involvement was intended to help sustain the work initiated
through Get Digital beyond the funded programme.
Get Digital’s design and delivery was informed by evidence from research and
practice about what makes an effective digital inclusion programme for older people.
The various elements of the programme that contributed towards implementation
and shaped the learner experience are summarised in Diagram 1 below.
Scheme
staff
DU tutor Landlord
Learners
National Community
DU support partners
18
Diagram 1. Elements of the Get Digital model.
Equipment and face-to-face tutor support was provided to residents at 196 sheltered
housing schemes across England. Programme delivery was divided into three
waves:
Wave 1: In which 104 selected schemes received substantial intervention,
with grants of up to £5,000 in rural settings and £4,000 in urban settings; and
Wave 2: In which 92 selected schemes received less direct intervention, with
grants of up to £4,000 in rural settings and £3,000 in urban settings; and
Wave 3: Participating schemes did not receive any direct intervention, but had
access to a set of developed toolkits and resources to allow them to plan and
deliver their own resident digital inclusion programme.
Wave 1 and 2 schemes were offered staff and scheme support sessions, a resident
training programme, a series of customised expert sessions and also received
support to develop partnerships and to plan for sustainability.
As a contribution to the ongoing sustainability of the programme, six toolkits were
developed and made available for free download from the Get Digital website
http://getdigital.org.uk. They provide information and advice on delivering,
embedding and sustaining digital skills for older people in sheltered housing. Each
toolkit is comprised of guides, information sheets, activities for managers and
residents, resident learning activities, case studies and supporting resources.
19
Section 3:
Methodology
20
3. Methodology
The research comprised an eighteen month investigation into the impact of the Get
Digital Programme on a range of stakeholders including residents, sheltered housing
schemes, landlords and community partners. A mixed methods approach was
adopted, combining the collection of quantitative data from residents, scheme
contacts and tutors across the programme, with that of qualitative data from twelve
participating schemes, selected as case study sites.
In taking this approach, the evaluation sought to provide robust statistical data to
demonstrate the extent to which the Get Digital programme impacted upon residents
and staff across all participating schemes. To complement this, data collected
through the case studies provides a more detailed examination of both the impact of
the programme and the processes through which this impact was realised in a
smaller number of schemes. Furthermore, the case study approach enabled data to
be collected from a much wider range of stakeholders, including landlords and
community partners, thereby providing a much more holistic perspective on the
overall impact of the programme in these locations.
In triangulating different types and sources of data we have been able to develop a
picture of the programme’s role in developing the attitudes, knowledge, skills and
practices of those who took part and of the factors which contributed to successful
implementation.
An overview of the methodology is provided below, with a more detailed description
to be found at Appendix 1.
3.1 Quantitative data
Surveys were used to collect quantitative data from learners, scheme contacts,
tutors and users of the Get Digital website, across the whole of the programme. The
design of each survey was based upon the aims and objectives of the evaluation and
drew heavily on existing literature and survey questions. Additional areas of
21
questioning were also included at the request of DWP, to explore the potential
impact of the programme on a wide range of social policy areas.
Table 1 below provides a summary of when data was collected, from whom, and
using which method. The study commenced in June 2010, as sessions began within
the first schemes and was completed in July 2011.
Table 1: Summary of quantitative data collection
Data collection
Data collection point Informant group
method
At initial session, Get set up, get enthused Paper-based
Time 1 Residents
(from June 2010) survey
At initial session, Get set up, get enthused Paper-based
(Baseline) Scheme contacts
(from June 2010) survey
At the final learning session (by end of March Paper-based
Residents
2011) survey
At the end of tutors’ engagement
Paper-based
Scheme contacts
Time 2 survey
at each scheme (by end of March 2011)
At the end of tutors’ engagement
Tutors Online survey
at each scheme (by end of March 2011)
At least two months after the final learning Paper-based
Residents
session (May-July 2011) survey
At least two months after the final learning
Time 3 Scheme contacts Online survey
session (May-July 2011)
During July 2011 Wave 3 Online survey
A longitudinal study that aims to follow the same individuals over any extended
period has to take account of the numbers who are likely to become unavailable as
time goes on (the attrition rate). For the residents’ survey, the original sample
included all residents (2,947) who were allocated an id number as part of the Get
22
Digital Programme. On this basis, a 71 per cent response rate was achieved at T1,
43 per cent at T2 and 18 per cent at T3. In practice, however the picture is more
complex; some participants were involved with the programme from the outset and
therefore did not complete a questionnaire at T1, while others who were involved at
the outset did not continue with the programme to the final session. Across the three
time points, completed questionnaires were received from 2,328 residents in 192
schemes[1]. In order to address this complexity, throughout the report, we have
treated T1, T2 and T3 respondents as separate cohorts, with longitudinal data
available across all three time points for 309 residents (10% of T1 respondents).
Within our analysis, significance testing has been undertaken and differences have
only been reported where they have been found to be statistically significant.
Scheme contacts (scheme managers or support staff) were surveyed at the same
three time points as residents. Around three-fifths of scheme contacts completed the
survey at T1 and T3, although at T2 when the return was tied to the release of a
grant payment, all but 4 schemes responded.
At the end of the learning programme (Time 2), tutors were invited to take part in an
online survey. Although some tutors were involved with more than one scheme, they
were requested to submit one response per scheme. In total, 181 completed surveys
(92 per cent) were received from 68 tutors.
In addition to the distribution of grant funding to 196 sheltered housing schemes, as
part of wave 1 and 2 of the Get Digital programme, a website featuring free
downloadable learning toolkits was also created (www.getdigital.org.uk) By doing
this, it was anticipated that the reach of the Get Digital programme could be
extended beyond those who had received funding; this group of users are referred to
as wave 3. In order to evaluate the impact of this aspect of the programme, 396
individuals who had accessed the toolkits were invited to take part in a short online
survey during July 2011. A total of 47 responses (12 per cent) were submitted.
[1]
Out of the 196 schemes funded as part of the Get Digital programme
23
3.2 Qualitative data
The qualitative element of the study collected data from twelve sheltered housing
schemes funded as part of the Get Digital programme. Each scheme was treated as
a case study; that is the subject of extensive enquiry, undertaken with a view to
collecting detailed evidence over a period of time. This method also served as a
basis for raising broader issues in relation to the Get Digital programme.
The twelve case studies were selected, at the outset of the programme in order to
explore maximum variation of context and delivery, using the following criteria:
scheme wave; region; rural and urban locations; community partnerships; and
delivery models.
Each case study comprised two stages of data collection. At Stage 1, focus groups
were used to collect baseline data from residents at seven case study sites at the
initial session, Get set up, get enthused. At stage 2, once the learning programme
had been completed, focus groups were conducted with residents in all twelve case
study sites. In addition, stage 2 also involved semi-structured interviews with
scheme contacts, landlords, tutors and community partners.
As well as undertaking a thematic analysis of the case study data, the evaluation
team have also produced 12 detailed individual case study reports. These can be
found at section 8.
3.3 Scope and limitations of the evaluation
Although a substantial investment was made in the Get Digital programme, which
covered 196 schemes and nearly 3,000 participants, each scheme received a grant
of no more than £5,000, with wave 1 learners taking part in 7 one-hour learning
sessions and wave 2 learners taking part in 5 sessions. It is therefore important to be
realistic about what this relatively small and short intervention can achieve.
Furthermore, identifying the impact of the programme is a complex area and it is
important to be clear about what this evaluation can and cannot claim to show.
Although the evaluation was largely carried during the lifetime of the programme, the
24
evaluation is summative. Therefore, at this stage it is possible to be clear only about
outcomes which are the immediate effects of participation in project activities on
people’s lives, such as changes in attitudes, the acquisition of new knowledge and
skills, the application of learning, or a stated intention to do things differently. It is too
early to identify impacts which are the overall consequences and longer term effects
of the programme on communities or indeed wider society. However, by capturing
evidence which demonstrates the ways in which learning and experiences from the
programme is being or will be applied we can identify where sustainable impact of
change might be expected to occur. The programme’s outcomes will be secured if
and when participants embed the new perspectives, knowledge and skills that they
have gained in ways which bring about more fundamental changes in attitudes and
practice.
The approaches used were also designed to enable us to explore the additionality of
the programme. That is, the extent to which changes identified through the
evaluation would not have occurred without it. Although a lack of a comparison
group means that it is not possible to be certain that the changes observed are a
direct result of participating in the Get Digital programme, participants were
specifically asked to locate their subjective assessment of the outcomes of their
engagement with Get Digital in the wider context of their experiences and aspirations
in order to explore causality.
Feedback from a number of schemes suggested that the requirements of
participating in the Get Digital programme were disproportionate to the investment
made. The possible evaluation fatigue experienced as part of this process may
explain some of the differences between tutor and individual learner responses
regarding the impact of the programme. One of the ways in which the evaluation
team sought to minimise the requirements asked of participants was to administer
questionnaires by tutors at Time 1 and 2 and by scheme contacts at Time 3. The use
of tutors also ensured that a single point of contact between the resident and the Get
Digital programme was retained and that existing relationships could be used to
secure maximum response. Although a pragmatic approach to undertaking the
25
evaluation, the administration of the surveys by an interested party did introduce
some potential for bias.
26
Section 4:
Implementation and delivery
.
27
4. Implementation and delivery
This section analyses the evaluation’s findings in relation to the critical success
factors associated with the implementation of Get Digital within schemes. Drawing
on evidence from the surveys and the case studies, It identifies a range of factors
that enabled or inhibited the achievement of successful outcomes in terms of both
learners’ acquisition of digital skills and the development of sheltered housing
schemes as settings where learning to promote digital inclusion for older people can
flourish. Parts of this section draw heavily on evidence from the case studies,
because this is where we have been able to explore implementation issues is much
more detail. This evidence suggests that in most cases those seeking to make the
programme work ‘on the ground’ faced at least some challenges in enabling the
project to run smoothly. Lessons can be learned from these challenges, as well as
from what went well.
4.1 Findings
4.1.1 Integrating the elements
For many of those who contributed to the evaluation from a range of perspectives,
the single most important factor behind the success of Get Digital was the integration
of funding for digital equipment with a programme of tutoring, staff development and
support. As a coherent package, this approach put the necessary infrastructure in
place to foster learner participation. As figure 1 below shows, three-quarters of
scheme contacts responding to the survey stated that the equipment grant, together
with the quality and skills of the tutor were the key success factors.
28
Figure 1: Most effective factors in achieving benefits according to scheme
contacts
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 3 survey (see Appendix 1f)
80 74 76
67
Proportion of scheme contacts (%)
70
60
47
50
40 30
30 25
17
20
10 4
0
learning programme
Website
Toolkits
Grant
Other
Peer support
Quality and skills of the
Content of the initial
community partners
Involvement of
tutor
Factors effective in achieving benefits
The scheme contact at one case study site which had some ICT equipment that was
little used prior to the programme confirmed this general view, stating,
‘Having the technology and the training together encouraged people to have a
go.’
Tutors were asked for their assessment of the factors which contributed to the
overall success of the initiative at the scheme or schemes where they taught. Their
answers suggest the complementary reinforcement of a number of key elements,
most important of which were the teaching approach, grants to purchase equipment
and the commitment of learners, scheme staff and landlords (see figure 2 below).
29
Figure 2: Most effective factors in achieving benefits according to tutors
Source: Tutors’ survey (see Appendix 1g)
100
88
Proportion of schemes (%)
90 86
81
80 70
70 66
60 54 53
47
50
38
40
30 26 25 24
20 16
10 5
0
Tailored learning programme
Other
Commitment of the scheme
equipment/internet access
Commitment from the
Quality of learning resources
Scheme staff’s support of
Scheme staff’s ICT skills
Including social events in the
Involving community partners
Involving residents in onsite
Enthusiasm of residents
Involving young people
Tutoring in pairs/small groups
to meet residents’ needs
residents’ learning
Grant to purchase
landlord
for residents
programme
manager
delivery
Factors effective in achieving success
4.1.2 Making the learning relevant
As figure 3 below shows, learners’ levels of satisfaction with the training were high,
with 88 per cent of survey respondents stating that they were satisfied that the
training received overall from the tutor, and 89 per cent stating specifically that the
tutor understood their needs.
30
Figure 3: Learners’ level of satisfaction with the training programme
Source: Learners’ Time 3 survey (see Appendix 1f)
Tutor provided high quality handouts
Aspect of the training
Tutor provided sufficient help
Tutor understood needs
Overall satisfaction with training from tutor
Tutor explained things well
0 20 40 60 80 100
Proportion of learners (%)
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
At almost all schemes, it appears that the needs and interests of residents drove the
design of the learning programme. Scheme contacts stated that nearly half of all
learning programmes delivered at schemes were designed to meet residents’
expressed interests, with a further 44 per cent being designed around their
expressed interests. Tutors and scheme contacts at several of the case study sites
described how they used questionnaires or one to one interviews with learner to find
out about their interests and previous level of experience with computers, and it is
likely that such approaches were widely used. Residents were not involved in the
design of the programme at five per cent of schemes (see figure 4 below).
31
Figure 4: How far residents were involved in designing the learning
programme
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 2 survey (see Appendix 1b)
60
Proportion of schemes (%)
50 48
44
40
30
20
10 5
3
0
The programme The programme A pre-determined Residents were not
was designed was designed to programme was involved
around residents’ meet residents’ approved by
expressed interests expressed interests residents
How far residents were involved in designing the learning programme
Over half the scheme contacts responding to the survey reported that the expert
sessions were completely designed around residents’ expressed interests and
needs, while a further 44 per cent reported that the sessions were adapted for
residents (see figure 5 below).
32
Figure 5: How far residents were involved in designing the expert sessions
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 3 survey (see Appendix 1f)
60
Proportion of schemes (%)
52
50 44
40
30
20
10 3 1
0
The expert sessions A pre-designed A pre-determined Residents were not
were completely programme expert programme of expert involved
designed around sessions was adapted sessions was
residents’ expressed to meet residents’ approved in its
interests and needs expressed interests entirety, by residents
and there was no
need adaptation
How far residents were involved in designing the expert sessions
Many of the tutors interviewed during the case study data collection described how
they initially enthused learners not by explaining what the technology could do, but
by finding out about their personal interests. This provided a starting point for
showing learners how computers could enable them to explore those interests in
new and different ways. The following comments are typical:
“One learner had previously attended an ICT college course, but did not learn
very much. When commencing his internet training, I asked him what his
interests were and soon he was searching for information on his war-time
regiment. I showed him how to copy pictures from the internet and he now has
pictures of his comrades, barracks in Germany and has e-mailed one of his
sergeants. He is a good ambassador for Get Digital.”
One chap only came along to the last two lessons, having refused at the start
. . . But what I had showed him, had made him very happy, as we revisited the
pit where he had been a miner, and I printed off and constructed a map, that
was four square feet, of the coal seam he used to work in; it now hangs
proudly in his bedroom.”
33
‘You have to get to know them – their past jobs and interests. You go through
until you see a little spark of interest. On the internet, everyone probably
wants something different, so I need to listen. ’
Several schemes that participated as case studies described specific approaches
that they had used to encourage participation, where an activity or interest was the
focus of the learning, and the technology was introduced merely as a ‘tool’ to
facilitate it. For example, at one scheme, one of the expert sessions was run as a
family history coffee morning. The family of one resident visited the scheme to talk
about their online genealogical research, and the tutor used that as a springboard for
the session. The scheme contact reported that the group was fascinated, and it
stimulated interest from other residents who had not previously wanted to take part.
At another scheme, a reminiscence project on recipes and cooking was initiated,
with the computers being used to carry out research and present the recipes. The
scheme contact at one case study site reported that one of the key lessons that Get
Digital had taught them about carrying out digital inclusion work was the importance
of focusing training around participant’s interests rather than trying to engage people
in technical IT training.
Learners themselves confirmed that they engaged best when the technology was
made relevant to them. During the case study visits, they gave numerous examples
of how their use of technology related to their own personal stories. Whether
computers were being used to communicate via Skype with relatives overseas,
research local history, plan a trip, compare car insurance prices, explore the night
sky, email friends or follow a football team, the common theme was that for most
learners the technology was the means to an end, and not the end in itself.
4.1.3 Learner involvement in project planning and design
Just over 60 per cent of scheme contacts who responded to the evaluation survey
reported that decisions about how to spend the Get Digital grant were reached
collectively by schemes, residents, staff and managers. A further 20 per cent
reported that the schemes listened to their residents’ suggestions (see fig 6 below).
34
Residents were not involved in the spending of the grant at 14 per cent of schemes.
Figure 6: How far residents were involved in grant spending
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 2 survey
70
61
Proportion of schemes (%)
60
50
40
30
20
20 14
10 4
0
Residents decided Residents made Residents, staff and Residents were not
how the money suggestions about managers decided involved in how the
would be spent how the money together how the money would be
would be spent money would be spent
spent
How far residents were involved in decising how to spend the grant
One case study scheme where Get Digital was notably successful developed the
initiative within the landlord’s strong existing tenant involvement framework. Prior to
commencement of the programme, residents had been involved in shaping the
scheme’s approach and throughout the evaluation period they showed a high level of
commitment to both their own learning and to encouraging other residents to use the
equipment. This approach was not typical of those identified through the case
studies, but it merits highlighting because it points to an important message about
the way in which the wider culture of individual host organisations can influence the
implementation of an initiative.
Involving learners at the initial planning stage and throughout the project also helped
schemes to make decisions about purchasing equipment – including identifying
where equipment was required to support accessibility for learners with visual
impairments, motor difficulties or other specific needs – and about other potentially
contentious issues. For example, several of the case study sites reported having to
address concerns over issues such as security of equipment, timetabling computer
35
use to ensure fair access, and covering the costs of consumables. Although
relatively minor challenges in themselves, it was clear from the case studies that in
the close environment of a sheltered housing scheme these could become
contentious and divisive issues if left unchecked. Resolution was more readily
achieved where learners’ were involved in agreeing workable solutions.
An illustration of the possible negative consequences of not involving learners was
apparent at one case study site, where purchasing decisions were made without
sufficient attention being paid to the need for specialist accessibility equipment, as a
result of which several learners stopped participating.
4.1.4 Flexible pace and structure
The Get Digital model was based on learners working in pairs during the structured
training sessions. Evidence suggests that in some cases this worked well,
particularly where the tutor carried out an initial assessment of learners’ previous
experience and paired up learners of a similar level. At least two of the case study
sites experienced problems as a result of trying to pair up learners who had very
different levels of skills. However, although tutoring in pairs worked for some
learners, a common observation was that the opportunity for one-to-one training
would have improved the programme because some learners needed more attention
and time than others. Tutors reported that it was sometimes difficult for residents to
be paired according to ability and a minority of residents found it difficult to share
lessons with others.
This scheme is mainly composed of very elderly residents . . . In this context,
one-to-one training, with frequent support from someone on-site, would have
produced better results.”
In the following sections, the role of peer learning champions and learning mentors in
helping to address this need is discussed.
Get Digital materials specified the topics to be covered in each of the Get Learning
sessions, and these did not always correspond to the needs of learners. Learners
36
interviewed at several of the case study sites remarked that the pace of teaching
was too fast and the structure too prescriptive. One learner observed, ‘Learning is
slower when you get older.’ Concerns were also raised that the standardised
learning programme did sufficiently allow for the very different starting points of
learners. While some already owned computers and had very specific issues with
which they wanted help, others had no experience at all and needed several
sessions to learn how to turn a computer on and off and learn how to use a mouse
and a keyboard.
For those who were complete beginners, the structure of the training was especially
problematic. One tutor, who like many worked across several schemes, suggested
that whilst the programme was well designed and resourced it sought to cover too
much too quickly:
‘There’s no way the majority of these people are going to get as far as this
project wants them to go. One week on email, one week on Skype, one week
on Word... no way! It took a lot of people four or five or six weeks just to learn
how to log into Gmail. It’s not the type of thing where you can show them once
or even several times and then the following week they will be able to repeat it
no problem. Too much, much too much. It needs to be a much simpler project
at a much slower place’.
In a similar vein, another tutor said:
“The seven Get Learning sessions did not provide residents with enough time
to get a good command of the necessary skills . . . a number of residents
wanted to carry on learning the basics and not look at specific topics like
digital photography.”
The skills and knowledge of the tutors themselves, and in particular their clarity and
patience, were widely remarked on by learners and scheme contacts, who identified
the tutor as a ‘key success factor’ at many schemes.
It appears that, within the structure laid down by Get Digital, some tutors were able
to do adapt the programme in response to learners’ needs. At one case study, the
37
tutor described how he began each session with an overview of what they had
covered the previous week, to determine whether they needed to go over it again or
could move on to the next topic. At another, the tutor did not cover everything that
was planned with all learners, but instead adjusted the programme depending on
what they wanted to learn.
In several case studies, learners described how the tutor had introduced them to the
Myguide resources (now Go-On5) to support further learning and practising at their
own pace, and reported finding these helpful.
4.1.5 Encouragement to practise
A key issue raised by learners, tutors and scheme contacts across many of the case
study sites was the importance for older learners, particularly when learning
something that is new and for some ‘terrifying’, of being able to work at their own
pace with ample opportunity and support to practise what they have been taught. In
this way, they are able to reinforce and consolidate the learning that has taken place.
As one tutor remarked,
‘It’s about repetition, repetition, repetition.’
Evidence from the case studies indicated that some learners found that one session
per week was not enough and they struggled to retain information between sessions.
Although it was assumed that learners would use the communal computers to
practise, it was clear that not everyone was confident to do so without support.
Several factors are highlighted by the evaluation which can contribute towards
creating an environment which supports and encourages learners to practise.
Peer support
At several case study sites, peer support emerged as an important factor in fostering
learners’ motivation and commitment between learning sessions. For example, at
5
www.go-on.co.uk
38
one scheme the tutor reported that one learner, although a complete beginner,
showed a strong willingness to help others. This in turn encouraged the
development of a supportive group dynamic, with a great deal of interaction between
group members and willingness to encourage one another. In another case, a
resident with some previous experience of computers met up regularly with other
learners to offer help and support.
In a number of case studies, the important contribution of learners who acted as
‘champions’ for Get Digital, actively promoted the learning opportunity to their fellow
residents, and provided practical help and support to build the confidence and skills
of others, was highlighted. The input of these individuals helped to address the
need of some learners for more one-to-one support, and encouraged people to
practise.
Volunteer mentoring
At some schemes, there was evidence that effective community partnerships had
been formed which provided an additional source of one-to-one voluntary support
and mentoring for learners. Although community partnerships were a key element of
the Get Digital model, their development appears to have been patchy. Half the
tutors responding to the evaluation survey stated that this was an area where further
development would have improved the project’s delivery. Evidence from the case
studies suggests that some schemes were unsure how to approach partners, and
that there was confusion at some schemes over whether responsibility lay for
identifying and developing potential partnerships lay with the tutor or the scheme
manager. Schemes in remote rural areas, or in disadvantaged urban areas,
sometimes struggled to identify suitable partners. Nevertheless, at some schemes
the partnerships worked well, brought in additional resources in the form of
volunteers’ time, knowledge and skills and enhanced the learning experience.
One scheme partnered both a local secondary school and a youth forum, and
volunteers from both these organisations paid regular visits to the scheme where
they provided one-to-one support for learners with activities such as Skype, email
and use of the internet. Several volunteers from the youth forum were of Somali
39
heritage, and were able to support the learning and inclusion of Somali elders living
at the scheme who had very limited English and would otherwise not have been able
to participate in the programme. Another scheme was partnered by a girls’ school,
from where a number of volunteers similarly visited on a regular basis. Learners
were enthusiastic about the support that the young people provided, and indicated
that they would have welcomed more. A scheme in a disadvantaged urban area
partnered a dynamic local community development organisation which effectively
provided leadership for the project. With established links to the scheme, and
committed to promoting the wellbeing its residents as part of their wider remit, the
organisation’s staff were highly praised by the scheme manager. As well as
facilitating learning themselves,
‘They knew a fair amount of people who could contribute and make the
project work... [They] made it into something fun and engaging.’
Location
It was apparent that the physical location of the communal computers within the
scheme could play a significant role in determining whether or not learners used
them in between the training sessions. There does not appear to be a simple
answer to this question, as the messages from across the case studies about the
ideal place to situate communal equipment are inconclusive. For example, the
manager at one scheme reported that learners did not use the machines because
they were located in a room that was cold, dark and situated away from the main
residential accommodation. The scheme manager argued the equipment should
instead be sited where it could be more readily integrated into residents’ social
activities. However, while it was true that in some cases computers were housed in
the scheme’s communal lounge and were well-used, in others this location was felt
to be inappropriate because of the noise and lack of privacy and as a consequence
learners did not use them to practise. In one scheme, a designated computer room
in the heart of the scheme encouraged use; in another, computers were placed in an
activity room which also housed sewing machines and again the noise acted as a
disincentive to use.
40
4.1.6 Committed individuals to make it work
A common thread running through all the case studies is the critical importance of
having key individuals within a scheme to champion digital skills among residents,
encourage participation in digital learning activities and act as a focus for developing
supportive relationships with community partners. In most cases, the lead role was
taken on by the scheme managers or other scheme or landlord staff who had been
appointed to act as Get Digital scheme contacts. Many tutors, landlords and
community partners interviewed for the evaluation described what they saw as the
vital contribution made to the project’s success by committed scheme contacts. The
following comments are typical
“The scheme manager is fully committed to the programme, despite lack of
time, and this is very important.”
“High level of commitment by scheme staff played a part in ensuring some of
the anxious residents become involved.”
“The scheme manager was very enthusiastic as was the landlord which really
made things blossom. The enthusiasm then spread to several other schemes
which weren't part of Get Digital which meant more of their residents were
involved.”
‘I would have to say that the scheme manager was very easy to work with and
very co-operative and professional in her approach.’
Several tutors who had experience of working across multiple Get Digital schemes
stated that schemes were more successful where the initial application had been
written by the scheme manager rather than the landlord. They attributed this to the
fact that scheme managers knew the residents’ needs and interests and had more
drive to make the initiative a success.
However, it was not necessarily the case that the key individual was the scheme
contact, or that the scheme contact alone drove forward the work. At one case study
site, the landlord organisation unusually employed an IT tutor to support its staff’s
41
digital learning, and the tutor provided the main source of energy and commitment to
the project and was the chief source of support for learners. In another case, staff at
the local authority adult learning service, which was brought in as a community
partner, took the lead. Indeed, it is noticeable that those schemes among the case
studies where the programme stimulated the greatest levels of enthusiasm and
engagement from learners and others tended to be those in which the scheme
contact was able to draw on the commitment of another key individual or individuals
– whether a tutor, community partner, member of landlord staff or (as was discussed
above) a peer learning champion – to carry out the role. As the testimonies from
some scheme managers and landlords made clear, the investment of time and effort
required to implement Get Digital successfully within schemes could be
considerable, and scheme contacts doubtless benefited from having access to
additional resources in the form of help and support.
4.1.7 Landlord commitment
The contribution of landlord organisations as a critical success factor was less
evident than that of scheme contacts, but was nevertheless apparent at some
schemes involved in the case studies. The evidence from the case studies suggests
that there were at least three ways in which the landlord influenced the success of
Get Digital’s implementation.
First, where the landlord organisation already promoted a culture of resident
involvement in planning and decision-making, this created a solid foundation for
implementation. At several case study sites, the high level of resident / learner
ownership of the initiative was remarked by tutors and community partners, and this
was attributed to the fact learners had been engaged in planning the programme
from the outset through the landlord’s tenant involvement framework. For example,
one landlord placed oversight of Get Digital with its Care and Support Forum for
older people.
Secondly, some landlords made additional resources available to support
implementation. For instance, at several case study sites the IT department of the
landlord organisation provided advice and technical support to Get Digital staff and
42
learners. This included a range of roles from offering expert guidance on equipment
purchases to undertaking ‘helpdesk’ tasks. In one instance, the landlord
organisation already employed a dedicated IT tutor who took the lead on
implementing the project.
Thirdly, some landlords actively supported scheme contacts, worked collaboratively
with them, and helped to ease the burden of additional work that Get Digital
represented for some managers. In contrast, several tutors interviewed during the
case study visits indicated that they felt landlords had not been especially supportive
of scheme contacts, and that this had hampered successful implementation. For
example, it was suggested that landlords could have done more to help build
relationships with community partners, or could have offered help with the
administrative tasks associated with Get Digital.
4.2 Discussion
The evaluation findings reinforce the message from earlier studies that tackling older
people’s digital exclusion demands a multi-faceted approach (Age Concern / Help
the Aged, 2009; CSHS, 2007). Purchasing equipment alone is unlikely to enable
people to start learning and to develop digital skills. The elements of successful
implementation highlighted by the evaluation are associated with two broad themes:
the design and delivery of the learning programme, and the roles and contributions
of the different parties involved. The Get Digital model aimed to provide an
integrated framework which put in place the various components needed to establish
a successful and sustainable project. While current policy and funding priorities
make it highly unlikely that another programme comparable to Get Digital will be
launched in the foreseeable future, this evidence indicates transferable lessons that
can inform digital inclusion initiatives at individual landlord and scheme levels.
4.2.1 A learner-centred approach
Get Digital was most effective at engaging and inspiring learners when the learning
on offer was perceived to be relevant to their lives and was tailored to meet their
individual needs and interests. These findings are not surprising. A considerable
43
body of research evidence from the field of adult learning consistently shows that
adults respond best to learning that reflects their own needs and interests (see, for
example, NIACE, 2006, NIACE, 2009). Identifying and exploiting the individual
‘hooks’ and ‘triggers’ that can engage people’s attention and induce a desire to learn
more is particularly critical when seeking to encourage participation among adults
who are reluctant, lack confidence in their ability and believe that ‘learning is not for
me.’
This message is consistent with the conclusions of other studies of good practice in
relation to digital inclusion for older people (Sourbati, 2009; Age Concern / Age UK,
2009; Hannon and Bradwell, 2008; CSHS, 2007). These studies stress that older
people are unlikely to be motivated to develop their digital skills unless they can see
the relevance and advantages to themselves of doing so. As section 5.2 below
discusses in more detail, the view that they were too old to learn, and that computers
in particular were not for them, was widespread among Get Digital learners at the
outset of the training. The importance of individuals’ setting their own digital
learning goals in order to maintain that sense of connection has also been identified
(Hernandez-Encuentra et al).
Under these circumstances, the extent to which schemes involved learners in the
planning and delivery of the learning programme was an important determinant of
the quality of the learning experience. In common with other public policy areas,
adult learning has witnessed a growing emphasis over the past decade on the
importance of providers’ involving ‘service users’ – in this case learners – in
decision-making, planning and feedback processes. Many benefits have been
identified from learner involvement, including:
it identifies and addresses barriers to participation;
it engages new learners by developing provision that meets their needs;
it reduces waste and improves efficiency by matching provision to learners’
needs;
it supports learner empowerment and democratic processes;
it strengthens relations between learners and staff (see, for example,
Futurelab, 2006, Forrest et al, 2007, Hendry et al, 2008).
44
Such an approach also reflects the current policy imperative to maximise the
contribution that participative processes and practices associated with informal adult
and community learning make to civic participation and citizen empowerment (BIS,
2011a).
The importance of learner involvement in shaping how digital inclusion projects are
implemented ‘on the ground’ is identified in a number of studies (Blaschke et al.,
2009, CHSH, 2007). Giving residents a stake in the design of the project helps to
foster a sense of ownership, which can be vital for maintaining interest, engaging
new learners and sustaining the work. Evidence from the case studies suggests that
involving learners in planning and decision-making processes linked to Get Digital
encouraged learners to ‘own’ the initiative, and that this helped schemes to avoid or
address difficulties with day to day implementation. It is clear, for example, that the
location of communal equipment could be a key determinant of learners’ use of
computers between training sessions. Involving learners in making decisions about
where to locate communal computers would help to maximise the likelihood of their
accessing the equipment. An earlier study by Digital Unite notes that decisions
about where to site computers should not be made without consulting residents
(CSHS, 2007).
Get Digital aimed to provide learners with the opportunity to develop a range of
digital skills over a relatively short period. Our findings suggest that a less ambitious
and more flexible training programme would have been welcomed by many learners,
who found that the pace and structure of the sessions did not give them time to gain
enough familiarity with new ideas and skills. The need to provide sessions which
can accommodate a wide range of starting points underlines the importance of
ensuring that those involved in teaching digital skills to older learners have an
understanding of the learning needs of this particular group and can adapt and flex
the learning accordingly (CSHS, 2007).
In addition, the findings suggest that digital skills projects for older people need to
devote at least as much effort to determining how opportunities can be created for
learners to practise and consolidate their digital skills outside of structured training
sessions as they do to the purchase of equipment and tutoring support. Initiatives
45
delivered in sheltered housing schemes have an advantage over non-residency
based projects in that they have the potential provide to routine physical access to
digital equipment for their residents. However, this in itself is not enough to ensure
sustained use. Unless due attention is paid to the factors that encourage learners to
practise, many will lose interest and motivation and what they have learned will be
soon lost. This should be recognised as a planning issue, which can be addressed
most effectively by being built into project design.
The figure of five per cent of schemes which did not involve learners in deciding what
and how to learn may seem low. However, it points to the need for further staff
development and peer support to ensure that those responsible for implementing
digital inclusion projects have the skills and confidence to give all learners a voice in
shaping their learning.
4.2.2 Effective sources of help and support
Sheltered housing offers such a fruitful setting in which to address older people’s
digital exclusion in large part because of its communal dimension. Within this
context, shared peer learning is a key factor for success (CSHS, 2007). The vital
contribution that peer learning champions can make to enabling learners –
particularly those who are not confident about their abilities and have little recent
learning experience - successfully to engage and participate in learning is widely
recognised (NIACE, 2011). As the name suggests, one of the most powerful
dimensions of the peer learning mentor or champion role is its foundation on the
principle that, from the learner’s perspective, the mentor is ‘someone like me.’ The
mentor is also an older person who has overcome their fear of computers and acts
as a role model and symbol of successful engagement. Their role in supporting
older learners has been identified as a key success factor for this group
(Independent Age, 2010, Freshminds, 2010). And as the evidence from the case
studies shows, peer champions can sometimes emerge quite spontaneously from
within learning activities, when a learner discovers an interest in or talent for helping
others in the group.
46
However, it is also the case that, to be fully effective, peer learning champions need
to operate within some kind of framework of support and development. Initiatives
such as Community Learning Champions, Union Learning Reps, Age UK Digital
Mentors and UK Online Community Capacity Builders each provides an
infrastructure to ensure that the champions themselves can develop the skills and
knowledge to work alongside others in a supportive and effective way. The role of
peer learning champion, whilst voluntary, is nevertheless one that requires
recognition and resource, with appropriate support to nurture the skills and abilities
of the individual champion. In particular, consideration needs to be given to quality
assurance, succession planning and to ensuring that an undue burden of
responsibility is not placed on an individual champion. Without attention to these
concerns, reliance on volunteers makes the initiative vulnerable.
The successful examples cited above of volunteer mentoring developed through
community partnerships give some indication of what might be achieved with greater
attention to the planning and development of this aspect of digital inclusion initiatives
in sheltered housing schemes. Evidence from other studies confirms that older
people prefer to receive face-to-face support to develop their digital skills (Age
Concern / Help the Aged, 2009). Such an approach also has the potential to
increase residents’ social interaction with new people, including young people, in the
community beyond their scheme, and thereby contribute towards reducing
ghettoisation and social isolation.
Peer support and the use of volunteer mentors and scheme staff to support learning
were important ingredients in the programme delivery at many schemes. However,
these were most effective as a complement to and not as a substitute for at least
some involvement from suitably qualified tutors. As other studies have also shown,
some element of tutoring and training needs to be planned and budgeted for within
digital inclusion initiatives, so that learners are able to benefit from tailored
approaches that are based on an understanding of effective practice in supporting
older people’s digital learning (Age Concern / Help the Aged, 2008; CSHS, 2007).
47
4.2.3 Scheme contexts
Case study evidence suggests that implementation of digital inclusion initiatives in
sheltered housing is shaped to a large extent by specific scheme and landlord
contexts. The paucity of other research evidence on this issue means that the
messages to emerge from the present study must currently be treated as indicative.
Nevertheless, although Get Digital was a national programme, it developed
differently in each setting and reflected the scheme or landlord’s size, staffing and
management structures and specific culture and values. For example, some of the
best practice in relation to learner involvement in shaping implementation of Get
Digital was found in those schemes which were already committed to a culture of
resident involvement. Some schemes were actively seeking to position themselves
as an IT hub for the local community, again indicating a strategic commitment to the
initiative and potential to develop this role in the future. Similarly, the size and type
of the landlord organisation influenced the wider resources that were available to
support Get Digital. For instance, larger providers employed dedicated community
engagement staff who were able to use their position as a basis for developing Get
Digital community partnerships, or were able to provide IT support to the initiative
from their central services. Very local factors, such as the physical space that was
made available to accommodate the computer equipment, also played a part.
The schemes participating in Get Digital had a wide range of different starting points
in relation to the kinds of factors noted above, and were not all equally well
positioned to deliver a successful project which reflected all the aspirations of the
Get Digital model. Digital inclusion activities, like other initiatives, inevitably take
shape to reflect their local context and it is important to recognise and respond to this
in future. Some schemes, especially those which are smaller, geographically
isolated, and have access to fewer resources via a large landlord organisation, are
likely to need more support to enable them to identify appropriate ways in which they
can, for example, resource the development of effective community links, or access
sustainable technical support.
48
Section 5:
Benefits and impact
.
49
5. Benefits and impact
This section analyses evidence on the benefits and impact of participation in Get
Digital for learners, sheltered housing schemes and landlord organisations, and
community partners. Data to inform the evaluation was collected during and
immediately following implementation of the Get Digital programme. Inevitably, this
means that it has captured evidence of the initiative’s immediate and short term
outcomes, and has much more to say about the changes brought about by the
programme for learners themselves.
5.1 Learner starting points and expectations
Evaluating the difference that participation in Get Digital made to learners requires
an understanding of their starting points.
5.1.1 Findings
Access to digital technology
Responses to the survey of scheme contacts and case study data suggest that
provision of IT and internet access for use by residents across participating schemes
varied considerably prior to Get Digital. Sixty-three per cent of schemes responding
to the survey had computers that were made available in communal areas for use by
residents. Over half had two or more such computers (see figure 7). Linked to these
communal computers, just over a quarter of schemes had equipment or software to
improve accessibility and almost one third) had other ICT equipment such as web
cameras, headphones, digital cameras, Nintendo Wiis, large TV screen, DVD player
and speakers.
50
Figure 7: Proportion of schemes with computers in communal areas prior to
the Get Digital programme
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 1 survey (see Appendix 1d)
40 38
36
35
Proportion of schemes (%)
30
25
20
14
15
10 7
4
5
0
0 1 2 3 4
Number of computers in scheme communal area
Just over half the responding schemes provided internet access for residents via
communal computers, and 46 per cent provided internet access in residents’ homes.
Only four per cent of responding schemes had no internet access for use by either
residents or staff. Twenty-nine per cent of schemes with internet access did not
have broadband (see Appendix 2, viii).
Evidence from the learner surveys indicates that, prior to their participation in Get
Digital, many learners used some forms of digital technology (see figure 8 below).
More than three quarters (78 per cent) of respondents reported that they used a
mobile phone, 62 per cent had cable, satellite or digital television, 41 per cent used a
digital camera and approximately two thirds (39 per cent) already used a computer.
It is important to note here that 41 per cent of the 309 individuals whose responses
to the learners’ survey can be tracked across the three data collection points
indicated that they already used a computer, meaning that the starting point of this
sample was consistent with that of the whole respondent population.
51
Figure 8: Proportion of learners using digital technology prior to the Get
Digital programme
Source: Learners’ Time 1 survey (see Appendix 2a)
90 78
Proportion of learners (%)
80
67
70 62 62
60
50 41 39
40
26
30
20 8
10
0
Computer
Digital camera
Mobile phone
Digital radio
Cable/satellite/digital TV
Games machines e.g.
Personal alarms, pull
Cash dispensers (hole in
cord alarms etc
Playstation
the wall)
Type of technology
Learners were asked whether they had ever tried any of a range of computer or
internet-based activities. As figure 9 below shows, in the case of all the listed
activities, the majority had no experience.
52
Figure 9: Proportion of learners who had never tried computer or internet-
based activities prior to the Get Digital programme
Source: Learners Time 1 survey (see Appendix 2a)
90 85
80 81
Proportion of learners (%)
80 72 75
70
70
58
60 54
50
40
30
20
10
0
Making phone calls over the
Using word processing
Sending and receiving email
Using web for information
Using web for government
Using web for social
Using web for public
Using spreadsheets
networking
services
services
internet
Computer-based activity
Of the 39 per cent of respondents who already used a computer, 78 per cent did so
at home. Only 19 per cent used the computers provided in their schemes’
communal areas. The majority (62 per cent) received help with their computer from
family and friends. A quarter had received some form of training, and a quarter said
that they received no help but worked things out for themselves. Very few of those
who used a computer did so every day. The overall impression is that computer use
among respondents was limited and where it did occur it was a private activity.
Attitudes towards digital technology
Findings from both the survey of learners and the case studies suggest wide
variations in learners’ actual experience of, and confidence in using, digital
technologies. Some had used a range of technologies, in a small minority of cases
to a sophisticated level. For example, learners reported being able to record
television programmes, use a computer and the internet, send texts and take
53
photographs using a mobile phone. Some who owned digital cameras saved their
photos on disk, on a computer or on their television set.
Several very confident individuals encountered through the case studies reported
being able to carry out more advanced operations such as downloading music onto
an ipod, booking travel on the internet, using a webcam in communications, using
the calendar facility on their mobile phone or recording digital TV programmes:
“ it’s all on series link…one remote control and I know how to use it”
Some respondents reported using the internet for entertainment or learning,
including keeping abreast with the news and finding information about hobbies,
crafts and interests. They also played games and downloaded music and watched
films.
Much more commonly, though, learners reported that they had prior experience of
using only specific technologies, and those in a limited way. For example, they only
watched digital television or made calls using a mobile phone, and did not use or
explore other features of the technology. Some individuals reported struggling to
use a digital television, being unable to change stations on their digital radio or
having difficulty sending texts. A small number of people had been given or had
bought equipment such as mobile phones, digital cameras, DVD players or
computers that they did not use or had given away because they did not understand
how to use them. Where survey respondents had tried computer-based activities,
the levels of confidence they reported in doing so were low, as figure 10 below
illustrates. For example, around half of those who had tried sending and receiving
emails (53 per cent) or finding information on the web (51 per cent) reported feeling
at some level of confidence about doing so.
54
Figure 10: Learners’ level of confidence to carry out computer or internet-
based activities, amongst those who had tried them
Source: Learners’ Time 1 survey (see Appendix 2a)
Using word processing
Using spreadsheets
Computer-based activity
Using web for social networking
Using web for government services
Using web for public services
Using web for information
Making phone calls over the internet
Sending and receiving email
0 20 40 60 80 100
Proportion of learners
Very confident Confident Quite confident Not very confident Not at all confident
Among the sample of 309 tracked individuals, a broadly similar pattern was
apparent, with 54 per cent and 44 per cent respectively stating that they felt some
level of confidence to send and receive emails and find information on the internet
(see figure 11 below).
55
Figure 11: Tracked learners’ level of confidence to carry out computer or
internet-based activities, amongst those who had tried them
Source: Learners’ Time 1 survey (see Appendix 2a)
Using web for information
Computer-based activity
Sending and receiving email
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proportion of learners
Very confident Confident Quite confident Not very confident Not at all confident
Most participants in the case study learner focus groups expressed bewilderment
about computers and admitted to a lack of confidence in their ability to use
technology, sometimes apparently based on a negative initial experience. The
following comments are typical:
“I know nothing about the background or how it works”
“If the computer goes on the blink, I go with it”
“I did not get on with it and it didn’t get on with me”.
Others described feeling excluded due to the terminology and jargon surrounding
computers such as ‘megabyte’ and ‘memory’:
“I don’t know what they’re talking about half the time”
56
Messages that appeared on the computer screen such as ‘time out’, ‘log off’ or ‘do
you want to use Java?’ caused anxiety as learners did not know what to do in
response.
One referred to accidentally making calls on her mobile phone. Such experiences
caused frustration, fear or made people feel stupid. Comments from case study
participants’ included the following:
“’I’ve got one [mobile phone] but it frightens the life out of me…panic sets in”
“I’ve got one [mobile phone] but I rarely use it because I don’t understand it”
“I’m a bit thick on things like that”
Some learners expressed fear that their lack of knowledge about how to use
computers, particularly if they went on-line, would cause them to make practical
mistakes with serious consequences, such as accidentally buying something they do
not want, unintentionally gaining access to gambling or pornographic websites,
compromising their privacy and security, or exposing themselves to fraud and
identify theft.
Personal emotions were, in some cases, linked to intergenerational differences.
Case study participants argued that young people were brought up with technology
and learnt quickly. One learner captured this feeling by describing his generation as
“born B.C – Before Computers”. Technology was perceived to be designed for, and
targeted at, young people. Consequently, it was believed to be too complicated and
changed too quickly for older people to use, a view that echoes research reported by
Independent Age (2010). Perhaps not surprisingly, it was apparent that learners
who already used the other technology that they owned frequently or used a range of
facilities on these technologies were more likely to have started to use computers or
were less anxious about doing so than those who struggled with the other forms of
technology that they currently used.
57
Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the learners who participated in Get Digital
generally held positive views about the potential of computers and were motivated to
learn. In contrast, at the start of the Get Digital project there was evidence of an
appetite to learn, such as in the following comments from case study participants:
“I get frustrated that I don’t know as much as I want to”
“Everything you need to know is on the computer – just need to know how to
find it “
“I’m scared to use one [computer] so I’ve got to get over that first”
One participant described herself as being “fascinated” by computers and technology
and being “itching to go”. One had bought a computer specifically for the learning
programme and another had asked her family to buy her one for Christmas. Most
were keen to learn and pointed out that age did not mean that they wanted to “shut
their brains down”.
Reasons for participating in Get Digital
The evaluation data suggest that learners were attracted to the programme because
of the benefits that they anticipated it would bring. Even where they had only limited
personal experience of technology, they were able to point to the potentially positive
impact that learning to use computers would have on their quality of life. Figure 12
below shows the anticipated benefits from participation in Get Digital cited by survey
respondents.
58
Figure 12: Proportion of learners that anticipated benefits from participation in
the Get Digital programme
Source: Learners Time 1 survey (see Appendix 2a)
80
70
Proportion of learners (%)
70 64
58
60 51 49 47
50
40 32
30
20
10 4
0
Meeting new people
Saving money
Other
Finding out about local
Developing ICT skills
Keeping in touch with
Finding out about public
interests and hobbies
friends and family
Helping to pursue
services
events
Anticipated benefits from Get Digital
This desire among learners to address their digital exclusion is apparent among both
survey respondents and case study participants. Around two-thirds of respondents
stated that they were motivated, in part at least, by the desire to learn ICT skills for
their own sake. Case study participants described how they hoped to learn digital
skills and to gain confidence and independence in using technology. Individuals
wished to be sufficiently confident to use computers and the internet safely. One
learner expressed his aim as:
“.. to be as comfortable using the computer as I am picking up the phone”.
A few participants linked their skill development to being independent learners. They
wanted to be capable of continuing to learn, to adapt to more up-to-date
programmes and new developments, and to correct their own errors rather than
relying on others to explain or help.
The sense that digital exclusion made them in some sense socially marginalised was
articulated by some learners at case study sites. Keeping up-to-date with technology
59
and with the younger generation was a motivating force for some who reported
feeling “thick” and “stupid” in comparison with young children who were apparently
adept users of technology. Two groups talked about feeling excluded, left behind or
out of control because of the move to deliver services online:
“it’s all ‘go to www.something’ in adverts”…“We are being prepared –
unknown to most of us – for all banking to be by computer”.
“You feel that you should be doing everything on computer. You feel bullied at
times: ‘ go to www.do’ “”
“I’d like to rejoin the human race”.
However, for many learners who contributed to the evaluation, their interest was
stimulated by perceptions of the new personal, social and economic opportunities
that would be opened up to them via technology.
Easier and better communications with family and friends was the single most
significant factor cited by respondents and case study participants. Alongside this,
the internet was recognised a potentially rich source of information, learning and
widened horizons. Eighty-five per cent of survey respondents (which included many
with little or no experience of using the internet) agreed or strongly agreed that it is a
fast and efficient way of finding information and around three quarters believed that it
makes life easier. Case study participants hoped to use it for a wide range of
purposes which fell broadly into the following three categories:
finding information on their local community, including practical information
such as phone numbers and the opening times and entrance fees for local
services;
improving choice in consumption, by comparing the prices of goods and
services, shopping and booking travel and holidays online;
informal learning activities, for example pursuing an interest in ancestry and
family history or arts and crafts, or improving spelling and writing.
60
It is worth noting that, while case study participants expressed an interest in
accessing commercial online information and services, they made little reference to
government or publicly-delivered information and services. Similarly, few
participants referred to the value of the internet for researching information about
health and health management.
5.1.2 Discussion
This ‘headline’ figure of 39 per cent cited above for the level of computer use among
respondents to the Get Digital learner survey at the start of the programme is broadly
consistent with the findings of other recent studies on rates of digital participation
among older people. For example, research carried out by IPSOS MORI in 2010
found that 40 per cent of adults aged 65 and over accessed the internet, compared
with just over three-quarters of the adult population as a whole (IPSOS MORI, 2010).
Similarly, research for the Office for National Statistics indicated that 37 per cent of
one-person households over state pension age are connected to the internet, in
contrast to nearly 80 per cent of one-person households below state pension age
(Randall, 2010).
However, the survey data summarised above also confirm the complexities
surrounding the issue of digital exclusion and older people. On a simple measure of
access to equipment, it appears that by working with residents of sheltered housing
schemes, the Get Digital programme was not targeting the most digitally excluded
among the older population. Around half already had access to the hardware,
software and connectivity to get online. But, as other studies have also shown,
access to equipment alone is unlikely to be enough to foster digital inclusion
(Hannon and Bradwell, 2008; Age Concern and Help the Aged, 2010). A range of
factors can serve to entrench digital exclusion among older people, manifested
particularly in a refusal to use the internet. These factors include attitudinal issues
such as apathy or dismissiveness, even among those who have (or potentially have)
the means of going on-line. Attitudes, skills, confidence and behaviour all play a part
in determining the extent to which people can deploy the available technology to
enhance their daily lives.
61
The majority of Get Digital learners who contributed to the evaluation experienced a
range of attitudinal and practical barriers that had impeded their engagement with
digital technologies prior to the programme. They had often not developed the skills
and understanding to make them confident to explore the potential of technology,
even when they had access to it. As a consequence some technology, and in
particular computers, induced anxiety and caused people to doubt their capacity to
pick up the skills to master it. These findings accord with those of other research
which identify lack of understanding and confidence as the main barriers to older
people’s use of digital technology (Age Concern and Help the Aged, 2010; Cresci,
2010; Wong 2009).
The motivations for wanting to develop their digital skills cited by Get Digital learners
are also broadly consistent with the messages from previous studies.
Communication with family and friends, finding information on interests and other
subjects, and shopping and price comparison appear to be the key digital learning
triggers for older people (Hannon and Bradwell, 2008; Age Conern and Help the
Aged, 2010). Recognising the importance of these factors, and designing
engagement and learning activities that respond to and build upon them, should be a
key consideration for digital inclusion initiatives.
Get Digital learners made only limited reference to wanting to use the internet for
public service access or health management. This may be attributable to their
limited knowledge and awareness at the start of the programme about the range of
internet services; the marketing activity of public bodies and government agencies;
the media that participants currently access; or their primary interests and concerns.
5.2 Outcomes for learners
This section analyses the changes that learners and those close to them identified
as a result of participation in Get Digital.
62
5.2.1 Findings
Changes in learners’ use of and attitudes towards ICT
Evidence from both the surveys and case studies suggest that the Get Digital
programme increased levels of digital inclusion among residents in participating
schemes. Both in the schemes surveyed and in those which participated in case
studies, it appears that around half of all residents participated in the programme.
The data presented below both show findings from the Time 2 survey on use and
attitudes among learners at the end of the training programme, and seek to identify
changing patterns of use and attitudes via the tracked responses to the Time 1, Time
2 and Time 3 surveys and from the case studies.
The most common benefit that respondents identified simply related to learning how
to use computers. They suggested that finding out how to use computers,
understanding how computers worked, and learning what computers can do were
key benefits. The main functions that learners felt they had benefitted from learning
how to use were email and the internet.
Changing levels of confidence to undertake digital activities
Frequency of computer use among learners who took part in the programme rose,
although chiefly in relation to two specific activities. By the end of the training, as
figure 13 below shows, nearly 60 per cent of respondents were using email or
searching for information on the web at least once a week. The focus of activity
reflects both the content of the Get Digital training, and the interests and motivations
of the learners themselves.
63
Figure 13: Frequency of using email or searching for information on the web,
amongst learners at the end of the learning programme
Source: Learners’ Time 2 survey (Appendix 1b)
Computer-based activity
Using web for information
Sending and receiving email
0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency that activity is carried out by learner
(%)
Every day Several times a week Once a week
Once a month Less than once a month Never
Data for the tracked respondents provide an indication of the scale of the change
taking place in learners’ engagement with web-based activities. Figure 14 below
charts the proportion of respondents using email and searching the internet for
information at the beginning of the programme, at the end of the structured training
sessions, and two months after that. These data show an increase between Time 1
and Time 2 of 21 percentage points to 67 per cent in the proportion of learners who
used the email once a week or more, and an increase of 23 percentage points in to
59 per cent in the proportion of learners using the web to find information. Over the
same period, the proportion of learners who never carried out either of these
activities fell from around a third to less than a fifth.
Two months after the end of the training, it appears that there was some decline in
the frequency of email activity, but little change in the level of use of the web.
64
Figure 14: Frequency of using email or searching for information on the web,
amongst tracked learners over time
Source: Learners Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1a,1b,1c)
80
70 67
61
5960
60
Proportion of learners (%)
50 46
40 36
34
31
30
19 1919
20
15 1617
13 13 14
11 11
9 9 9 8
10 7
0
Once a Between Less than Never Once a Between Less than Never
week or once a once a week or once a once a
more week and month more week and month
once a once a
month month
Send and receive emails Search the web for information
Computer-based activity and frequency that learners carry them out
T1 T2 T3
Participation in the programme also appears to have affected people’s confidence in
using the technology to carry out a range of on-line activities. Surveyed at the end of
the structured learning programme, nearly two-thirds of respondents stated that they
were confident to send and receive emails and 61 percent that they were confident
to find information on the web. Only five per cent stated that they were not at all
confident to do either of these things (see figure 15 below).
65
Figure 15: Learners’ level of confidence to use email and search for
information on the web at the end of the learning programme
Source: Learners’ Time 2 survey (see Appendix 1b)
Computer-based activity
Using web for information
Sending and receiving email
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proportion of learners (%)
Very confident Confident Quite confident
Not very confident Not at all confident Never tried
An indication of the changes to learners’ levels of confidence may be gauged from
the responses from tracked learners. As figure 16 below illustrates, the proportion of
respondents who rated themselves at all confident to use email rose by 47
percentage points to 73 per cent by the end of the training, while the proportion of
those who described themselves as confident to find information on the web rose by
48 percentage points to 68 per cent over the same period. The data also suggest
that two months after the end of the training, these levels of confidence were being
maintained.
66
Figure 16: Tracked learners’ level of confidence to use email or search for
information on the web, over time
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1a, 1b, 1c)
60
Proportion of learners (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Confident
Confident
Never tried
Never tried
Not very confident
Not very confident
Not at all confident
Not at all confident
Very confident
Quite confident
Very confident
Quite confident
Send and receive emails Search the web for information
Computer-based activity and confidence level
T1 T2 T3
The impression that learners had gained in confidence to use digital technology, and
that this change can be attributed to the training, is borne out by other data. For
example, at the end of the programme, learners were asked how their attitudes
towards computers and the internet may have changed, if at all, as a result of taking
part in the Get Digital training. The results are presented in figure 17 below. In total,
83 per cent of respondents stated that their attitude towards computers and the
internet was more positive, and for almost two-thirds of those it was much more
positive. Negative views about the internet also decreased among survey
respondents, with a drop of 13 percentage points in those who asserted that the
internet was frustrating to use.
67
Figure 17: Learners’ change in attitude towards the internet, by the end of the
learning programme
Source: Learners’ Time 2 survey (see Appendix 1b)
70
58
Proportion of learners (%)
60
50
40
30 25
20 15
10
1 1
0
Lot more Little more Stayed the Little more Lot more
positive positive same negative negative
Degree of change in attitude
Typical comments from learners at the case study sites illuminate these attitudinal
changes. For example:
‘I was scared stiff when I first started, in case I pressed the wrong button but
the more you use it, the more confidence you get.’
‘I didn’t understand them before, but now think they are marvellous’.
‘I didn’t think a lot of computers very much, but now thinks it’s all excellent’.
Case study participants at several of the sites described how computers had made
tasks that they already carried out easier – such as contacting family and friends,
pursuing hobbies and finding information – and they had integrated use of the
technology into their daily routines.
However, data from the surveys suggest some qualification needs to be made to
these findings around the impact of Get Digital on use of and attitudes towards digital
technology. While use of and confidence in relation to computers increased, as we
have seen, the majority of learners confined their on-line activity to a narrow range of
pursuits, chiefly using email and finding information on the web.
68
When asked two months after the end of the training about the specific kinds of
things for which they used the internet, respondents’ answers indicated that in
almost all cases, the majority never did most of the activities suggested (see fig 18
below). The only activity undertaken by more than half of those surveyed was
finding out about products and services.
Figure 18: Proportion of learners who never carry out computer or internet-
based activities two months after the Get Digital programme
Source: Learners’ Time 3 survey (see Appendix 1b)
80 68
65 65
Proportion of learners (%)
70
60 54 51
50 45
40
30
14 16
20
10
0
receiving email
Using web for social
Making phone calls
Using web for
Using word
Using spreadsheets
Using web for public
government services
processing
Sending and
information
over the internet
Using web for
networking
services
Computer-based activity
Data on patterns of behaviour over time from the sample of tracked individuals
underlines the limited impact which the training had on the range of on-line activities
undertaken by learners. The change in the frequency with which different activities
were undertaken across the period of the evaluation was negligible (see Appendix 2,
table xvii). The only listed activities in which there appears to have been a significant
increase in use of the internet were finding out about products and services and
comparing products and prices. In both these cases, the proportion of learners who
never carried out these activities fell. The picture broadly reflects that of the whole
respondent population, with finding out about products and services being the only
activity which, by Time 3, more than half of respondents had tried.
69
A changed relationship to digital technology
Data on learners’ future intentions in relation to the use of digital technology indicate
that for many the programme changed their relationship to computers and the role
that they anticipated digital technology would play in their lives, and gave them an
appetite for further digital learning. As figure 19 below shows, at Time 2, 88 per cent
of respondents stated that they were likely to use a computer again, and 84 per cent
that they were likely to use the internet. Similar, if slightly higher, figures were
recorded for the tracked individuals. However across both respondent groups, there
also appears to have been a drop between Time 2 and Time 3 in the proportion of
those who anticipated that they were likely to use the internet in the future – from 88
per cent to 80 per cent in the tracked sample and 84 to 79 per cent among all
respondents.
Figure 19: Likelihood of learners using computers or the internet in the future
Source: Learners’ Time 2 survey (see Appendix 1b)
Internet
Activity
Computer
0 20 40 60 80 100
Proportion of learners (%)
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
Nevertheless, these data also serve to underline relatively limited range of activities
that captured learners’ interests (see figure 20 below). The activities which learners
most frequently anticipated undertaking in the future were using email and finding
information on the internet, which were cited by around three quarters of
respondents at the end of the programme.
70
Figure 20: Computer and internet-based activities that learners are likely to
undertake in the future
Source: Learners’ Time 2 survey (see Appendix 1b)
80
Proportion of learners (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Access government
Word processing e.g.
information using the
services on the
Send and receive
Make phone calls
Use social networking
Use spreadsheets
over the Internet
Access public
services/websites
Internet
e.g. Excel
Search for
email
Internet
Word
sites
Computer-based activity
Figure 21 below shows that at the end of the learning programme and beyond, over
half of respondents wanted to learn more about computers and the internet. The
appetite to learn about a wider range of digital technologies appears to have been
fairly limited, although less than a fifth stated that they did not want to do any more
digital learning.
71
Figure 21: Proportion of learners that would like to continue learning about
digital technology
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1b, 1c)
70
60
Proportion of learners (%)
60 55 57
51
50
40
30 27 27
18
20
12
10
0
Like to learn more Like to learn more Like to learn about Do not want to do
about computers about the Internet different any more learning
technologies about technology
Focus of learning
T2 T3
Learners were asked what would help them to continue using computers. The
answers indicate that, for most respondents, Get Digital stimulated a desire to learn
more. Figure 22 below shows that around two thirds of respondents at both Time 2
and 3 said that they would like further training. Around half that they would like
someone to help them to practise what they had learned, suggesting that they did
not feel fully confident in their new skills and wanted to consolidate them.
Approximately a quarter said they would like access to learning materials and
improved access to a computer. Although only six per cent of respondents in both
the total sample and the tracked sample stated at Time 2 that they did not need any
further help, both data sets show that this proportion doubled by Time 3 (to 12 per
cent and 13 per cent respectively).
72
Figure 22: Support that would help learners to continue using computers in
the future
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1b, 1c)
80
67
Proportion of learners
70 63
60 56
50 45
40
27 27 24
30 23
20 12
10 6 4 6
0
I do not need any
Don’t know
Someone to help me
Further training
Improved access to
Access to learning
computers/my own
practise what I have
further help
materials
computer
learnt
Support that would help learners
T2 T3
Increased confidence in ability to learn
Get Digital appears not only to have raised participants’ levels of confidence to carry
out specific digital technology related activities. The data also suggest that, in a
more fundamental way, it altered some participants’ view of themselves in relation to
learning and increased their confidence in their general ability to learn.
At the end of the learning programme, three quarters of survey respondents stated
that, as a result of participation in Get Digital, they had greater confidence in their
ability to learn. Many learners also reported that they gained a particular sense of
achievement in demonstrating their ability to learn digital skills. Evidence from the
case studies suggests that many learners started out with little confidence in their
ability to learn digital skills in later life. This initial perception of age as a barrier and
of their own age-related limitations was challenged by their experiences on the
73
programme, and was a frequently cited source of pride. The following comments,
from residents who took part in a focus group at one case study site are typical:
‘Before I started Get Digital, l thought that computers were ok if you are young
and employed. Now I think computers are for everybody. ... l
I thought that computers were too technical for my age. ... [But] age is no limit.
‘The thing that surprised me most was that I could do it.’
'You don't expect to be learning at this age... you're never too old to learn'
Stronger social relationships
Findings from the survey and case studies suggest that Get Digital contributed to
strengthening participants’ social relationships in several ways:
by improving the range and quality of communication with family and friends;
by bringing residents together to pursue a collective learning activity.
In response to the surveys undertaken at Time 2 and Time 3, between a third and
half of learners cited benefits relating to better communications with family and
friends, as shown in figure 23 below.
74
Figure 23: Proportion of learners that reported social benefits as a result of
participating in the Get Digital programme
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1b, 1c)
60
51
Proportion of learners (%)
50
50 43 43
41
40 36
30
20
10
0
Easier to keep in touch Met new people In contact with
with people family/friends more
often
Social benefit
T2 T3
The data on the ways in which participation in Get Digital contributed to stronger
family and social relationships presents a complex picture. Prior to their participation
in Get Digital, the majority of learners reported speaking to family on the phone (81
per cent) and meeting up with their family (63 per cent) at least once a week.
Clearly, they were not overall a cohort experiencing severe social isolation.
However, only 19 per cent of residents regularly wrote or emailed their family. As
figures 24a, b and c below show, respondents at Time 2 and Time 3 continued to
meet with family and speak to them on the telephone at roughly the same rate.
However, the proportion of respondents that wrote to or emailed their families
increased over the period of the programme. The proportion of residents who wrote
to or emailed their family once or twice a week more than doubled between Times 1
and 3, from 10 percent to 22 per cent, as did the proportion of those who write or
email once or twice a month (from 12 per cent to 25 per cent).
75
Figure 24a: Frequency of meeting up with family, over time
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1a, 1b,1c)
50
38 39 41
Proportion of learners (%)
40
30 25 22
21 19
20 15 18
11 9 9
10 5 5 4 6 7 6
0
Three or Once or Once or Every few Once or Less than
more times twice a twice a months twice a year once a
a week week month year/Never
Frequency of meeting up with family
T1 T2 T3
Figure 24b: Frequency of speaking to family on the phone, over time
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1a, 1b, 1c)
60
Proportion of learners (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Three or Once or Once or Every few Once or Less than
more times twice a twice a months twice a year once a
a week week month year/Never
Frequency of speaking to family on the phone
T1 T2 T3
76
Figure 24c: Frequency of writing or emailing family, over time
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 2, xxiv)
50 47
Proportion of learners (%)
45
40
35 29
30 24 22 25 25
25 20
20
15 12 14 10 12 11 10 9 11
9
10 6 5
5
0
Three or Once or Once or Every few Once or Less than
more times twice a twice a months twice a year once a
a week week month year/Never
Frequency of writing or emailing family
T1 T2 T3
While email did not displace face-to-face communication, it appears to have added a
new dimension to learners’ ability to keep in touch.
Learning to use other forms of digital communication, particularly Skype, emerged
from the case studies as being particularly valued by learners with families living at a
distance, and evidence also indicated that some learners used the internet and email
to connect or reconnect with friends living elsewhere. Some learners described
using internet features such as Google Earth to ‘visit’ family overseas.
Evidence from learners, tutors, landlords and scheme contacts also suggests that
participation in Get Digital contributed to improved relationships between residents
within sheltered housing schemes, and in some cases between residents and
members of the wider local community. Tutors at several of the case study sites
identified the social aspect of the programme as a key feature of its success. Ninety-
two percent of scheme contacts responding to the evaluation survey stated that they
believed social interaction between learners had improved as a result of the
programme. Landlords at a number of schemes argued that Get Digital had
increased the social interaction between residents and helped to build a stronger
sense of community within the scheme.
77
According to the scheme manager at one site, the Get Digital programme had
helped to bridge a divide between residents living in the two halves of the scheme,
by bringing them together to learn. The representative of a landlord with multiple
schemes participating in Get Digital argued that the programme had helped to
change the dynamic between residents:
‘At the most successful schemes it really improved the community spirit. It’s a
really difficult one to explain but when people have been used to independent
living and they come and live in a communal building you do get quite a lot of
tensions coming through and neighbourhood arguments because people are in
close proximity to each other. This certainly helps. It’s been a focus for a lot of
people and it’s brought them together and they’ll help each other.’
Some learners themselves spoke positively about how the programme got them ‘out
of the house’ and provided an opportunity to mix with and meet other people.
Learners taking part in the case study focus group at one scheme described how,
because most of them lived alone, participating in Get Digital had helped them spend
less time alone in their flats, and more time socialising with other residents.
However, it is important to stress that the quantitative evidence does not indicate that
participation in Get Digital had an impact on the number of social activities as a
whole in which learners took part (see appendix 2, table xxv). Over half of survey
respondents indicated that they took part in social activities at least once a week,
and this proportion remained broadly the same across the evaluation period. As we
noted above, the learners on the programme do not appear to have faced severe
social isolation before prior to the learning, and consequently we may not expect to
see substantial change in this regard. To be clear, then, we are suggesting that the
programme appears to have strengthened social relationships among residents
within schemes, but did not fundamentally alter the social lives of residents.
Two factors in particular seem to have underpinned these developments. First, as
figure 25 below based on the views of scheme contacts indicates, the communal
computer facilities became more well used during the programme. In 43 per cent of
responding schemes, more residents used the computers, and in 56 per cent of
78
schemes the machines were used more frequently. In around half of schemes, then,
the communal computers became a focal point for greater sociability. The provision
of communal computers encouraged learners at some schemes to incorporate
practising the skills they were developing into a social context.
Figure 25: Change in residents’ use of scheme’s communal computer facilities
Source: Scheme contacts Time 3 survey (see Appendix 1f)
60 56
Proportion of scheme contacts (%)
50
43
40
30 27
20
12
10 6
0
Residents use Residents use Residents use More residents Few residents
the computers the computers the computers use the use the
about the same more frequently less frequently computers computers
amount
Change in residents' use of communal computers
Secondly, the pursuit of common learning – exploration, discovery, growth, trying
things out – brought residents together and created a environment of sharing,
helping and collective endeavour and achievement. This dynamic was exemplified
in the networks of peer support that evolved within many schemes outside the formal
training sessions. Case studies identified numerous examples of this type of activity.
One scheme manager reported:
When residents have difficulties using the computers, they work these out
together; they share advice and ideas, and help each other when some people
have forgotten how to do things.
At one scheme, following the programme around six residents formed a group to
meet weekly to continue learning together. One of the group’s members said, ‘it’s
79
the community thing, brings us together’. In another case, learners in a focus group
discussion described how they support each other’s learning. One participant said, ‘
We share the information. What one picks up, pass on. They call us mentors
but I think the whole group mentors each other in a way’
The learning dimension was critical for bringing people together. And case study
data suggest that there was something distinctive about the learning of digital skills.
It was an activity that could involve residents in an inclusive way, and the data
include examples of a range of ways in which this happened. For instance, the
manager at one scheme which has an ethnically diverse mix of residents stated that
it was often difficult to find activities which were of interest to everyone. However,
the Get Digital programme attracted residents from a range of backgrounds,
including those whose first language was not English. Many schemes used the
funding to buy accessibility software so that residents with disabilities could use the
equipment.
Consumer empowerment
The Get Digital training programme included a specific module on online shopping.
While the proportion of learners that compared products, services and prices on the
internet increased over time, there was no real increase in the proportion of learners
who bought products on the internet (see Appendix 2, table xv).
Evidence from the case studies suggests that learners were using the internet to
become more informed consumers and exercise greater choice in their purchasing
decisions, but often in quite specific ways. Participants were particularly attracted by
the potentials for cost savings that resulted from comparing prices and finding
cheaper goods on line, and by the convenience of ‘shopping around’ and carrying
out transactions relating to particular kinds of good. For example, learners described
buying or intending to buy books, DVDs, a sofa, tablets and holidays on the internet
having discovered the substantial cost savings that could be made. Some had
saved money by finding cheaper options on services such as car insurance and
electricity supply, and one had spotted fraudulent activity as a result of accessing his
80
bank account on line. They also welcomed the convenience of being able to buy
bulky items and avoid queues. Several learners identified the potential for
maintaining independence that accessing goods and services in this way offered to
older people experiencing reduced mobility But there was little interest in routine
grocery shopping, which is perhaps a reminder that such activity provides an
opportunity for social interaction and exercise that it would be undesirable for older
people to give up. The data also indicate that some learners who participated
remained anxious about the security risks that were perceived to be associated with
on-line transactions. While they were enthusiastic about the internet as a price
comparison tool, they did not want to use it to make actual purchases.
Service user empowerment
Evidence on the impact of Get Digital on learners’ level of use of involvement in
services, including both wider public and community services and their sheltered
housing scheme, should be treated as indicative. This was not a primary focus for
either the programme itself or the evaluation as it was originally designed.
As figure 26 below shows, data from the learners’ surveys suggests that, as a result
of participation in the programme, more people used the web to access public
services. The proportion of participants who did so rose from a third at the start of
the programme to 39 per cent after the training and 45 per cent two months later, or
a difference of eleven percentage points across the evaluation’s data collection
period.
81
Figure 26: Proportion of learners using web to access public services over
time
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1a,1b,1c)
50
45
45
Proportion of learners (%)
39
40
34
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
T1 T2 T3
Time
It is not possible to know from these data whether this activity replaced other forms
of access or represented new service use. However, 32 per cent of learners stated
that they were more aware of public services, and ten per cent that they use public
services more (see appendix 2, table xxiii). Neither do the figures show what
services were being accessed. The number of respondents from either the whole or
the tracked sample using social care and older people’s support service does not
appear to have changed over the evaluation time period (see appendix 2, table
xxvii). An increase was reported in both samples in use of local libraries and leisure
and community centres see appendix 2, table xxii). It may be the case that learners
were finding information about what was available at these kinds of facilities, opening
times and so on, but that is not conclusive.
Evidence from evaluation suggests that participation in Get Digital contributed to the
empowerment of some learners by giving them a greater voice specifically in relation
to their housing services. Almost three-quarters of scheme contacts surveyed
reported that communications between scheme staff and residents had improved
and half that communications were better between residents and landlords (see
appendix 2, table xxix). Case studies indicate that in some cases this
82
communication involved residents providing feedback on services and seeking to
influence provision. At one scheme, the landlord was keen that residents use the
computers to contact the landlord directly about any problems with the facilities, such
as broken equipment needing to be repaired.
In addition, those who had digital cameras were beginning to email photos of the
problems to the landlords as evidence. At another scheme, one of the residents was
using the computers to help carry out her role as a ‘residents’ rep’. At several
scheme it was reported that residents were able to keep in touch with the scheme
manager via email and text messaging, which meant issues could be addressed
more quickly and helped to manage the fact that scheme managers was responsible
for several schemes and could only visit once a week.
Better health management
As with service user empowerment, Get Digital did not actively seek to promote the
potential role of digital technologies in supporting older people better to manage their
health. Nevertheless, the evaluation sought to explore whether the programme had
produced any benefits in this area because it is a key policy concern.
The evidence from the evaluation to suggest a link between participation in the
programme and better health management is limited and does not produce a
conclusive picture. However, there are indications that some learners may have
begun to access information that helped them in this way. At the start of the
programme, only a very small minority of learners reported that their health was bad
or very bad (see figure 27 below).
83
Figure 27: Learners’ self-reported health prior to the learning programme
Source: Learners’ Time 1 survey (see Appendix 1a)
50
45 43
38
Proportion of learners (%)
40
35
30
25
20
15 11
10 7
5 2
0
Very Good Good Fair Bad Very Bad
Standard of health
At the end of the training and two months later, learners were asked whether about
changes to various aspects of their health management as a result of participation in
the programme. As figure 28 below shows, a minority of respondents at both points
indicated that this was the case, with almost fifth of learners at Time 3 stating that
they look after themselves better and know more about their health.
84
Figure 28: Proportion of learners reported changes to their health as a result of
the Get Digital programme
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys (see Appendix 1b, 1c)
25
20
Proportion of learners
20 18
15 14
11
10
10 8 8
7
5
5 4
3
2
0
Look after Know more Better able Better able Easier to get Take less
myself about my to manage to manage about medication
better health my health pain
Benefit to health
T2 T3
The evidence does not, of course, indicate exactly how these learners believed the
programme had impacted on their health. Given that most learners had some form
of health condition or disability, other factors are also likely to have been at play,
particularly professional advice and medical interventions. The obvious assumption
is that learners’ acquisition of digital skills enabled them to find out about health
matters on the internet. However, there is no clear evidence for this. Indeed, the
limited data from the case studies that sheds any light on this issue relates to
software. One learner reported how she had learned how to create spreadsheets
during Get Digital. As a result, she was able to create a medication rota, and is now
better able to keep track of her husband’s medication timetable. The scheme
contact at another scheme described how one resident had suffered a stroke which
affected her speech. Her speech therapist gave her a computer programme to help
develop her speech, and she used the communal computers to run the programme
and carry out the exercises.
85
Wellbeing and life satisfaction
Learners were asked about their overall life satisfaction at the three data collection
points, and little, if any, change is discernable across the period for either the whole
sample or the tracked sample.
Over 80 per cent of learners in both samples indicated that they were either very
satisfied or fairly satisfied with their lives in general (see appendix 2, table xxxiii).
Similarly, before the learning programme started, the majority of learners stated that
they were fairly or very satisfied with their standard of living (80 per cent), their social
life (79 per cent) and the way they spent their leisure time (79 per cent). These
proportions did not differ greatly at Times 2 and 3, and are reflected in the pattern of
responses from the tracked sample of learners (see appendix 2, table xxxiv). In
addition, over 87 per cent of learners reported at the outset that they felt in control in
most situations, and there was no change across the evaluation period (see
appendix 2, table xxxv).
86
5.2.2 Discussion
The outcomes for learners who participated in Get Digital can be divided into two
broad categories: those which are specifically about the development of digital skills,
and may be considered as primary outcomes of the programme; and those which
may be considered as secondary outcomes, and are the wider social outcomes
resulting from either participation in learning activities or the application of digital
skills.
Digital literacy skills
It is clear that Get Digital fulfilled its primary purpose of promoting digital inclusion
among those who took part. The training built learners’ enthusiasm for computers
and increased their confidence to carry out specific on-line activities. This increased
enthusiasm and confidence around computers was evident both in the greater
frequency with which learners used computers, and the appetite that they expressed
for further digital learning. The role that digital inclusion initiatives can play in
tackling older people’s fear of computers and building what might be thought of as
their ‘digital confidence’ is supported by other studies (see Blaschke, 2009) and
findings from other projects such as ‘Schools for Silver Surfers’ (Adams, 2009).
The evaluation’s findings on the limited range of online activities undertaken by
learners are not surprising. Get Digital offered a short and focused intervention to
introduce learners to computers and to encourage them to start to develop digital
skills. Training sessions covered specific topics that it was anticipated would be of
particular interest to learners, and email, searching the web, and shopping online
were popular. It is not necessarily realistic to expect that learners who are relatively
new to computers would explore the wider potential of the web on their own initiative,
or even be aware of the existence of possible opportunities to which they had not
been introduced. Without some source of information and support about the wider
potential of the web, learners are unlikely to ‘know what they don’t know’.
The fact that most learners did not initially venture beyond a fairly narrow range of
online activities does not mean that they do not have the potential to do so. Not only
87
did participation in Get Digital pique participants’ interest in computers, it also made
them think differently about themselves as learners. Having begun to master
computers they had a much more positive perception of their capacity to learn, which
suggests that they would be receptive to trying out new activities, where these
appeared relevant and meaningful.
Wider social outcomes
Digital inclusion is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. As digital
exclusion is a dimension of social exclusion, digital inclusion initiatives carry with
them the promise of realising wider social benefits. Policy and practice around
ageing and digital exclusion point to the detrimental impacts on older people of not
being on line, in particular in terms of social isolation and reduced choice and control
over access to goods and services. Implicitly, it is anticipated that becoming digitally
included will improve older people’s wellbeing and quality of life.
Given the relatively high levels of general life satisfaction reported by Get Digital
learners at the outset, it is not surprising that the data do not show significant change
as a result of a single intervention. Indeed, it is likely that those who had a more
positive outlook were more disposed to join the programme in the first place.
Clearly, then, it would be inappropriate to make sweeping claims for the impact of
participation in Get Digital on learners’ overall life satisfaction. The fact that the
project was undertaken in sheltered accommodation, where housing related support
services are available to support and monitor residents, also needs to be taken into
account. Mellor et all (2008) undertook a study in relation the internet and wellbeing
in three retirement village complexes. As with Get Digital they identified that the
nature of the accommodation and support provided resulted in a high level over-all
satisfaction. The nature of the learner population also needs to be borne in mind.
Many reported existing health conditions and all will be faced, to a greater or lesser
degree, with a declining level of health as a result of ageing. Other studies on
learning and ageing have stressed the important role that learning can play in
maintaining quality of life for older people who are at risk of experiencing
deteriorating well-being (Aldridge, 2010). As the sheltered housing sector continues
to change and develop to meet the needs of an ageing population, and increasingly
88
accommodates those with higher levels of dependency and care needs, the role of
activities such as learning, including digital learning, that can maintain health and
wellbeing will grow in importance.
So, Get Digital participants did not report an overall increase in life satisfaction as a
result of the programme. However, the findings presented above suggest that there
were a number of specific ways in which participation in the programme may have
contributed to promote a sense of wellbeing and life satisfaction among learners:
acquisition of new skills; greater confidence in their ability to learn new things; better
social relationships and a sense of belonging; enhanced empowerment in relation to
use of goods and services; and better health management. There is considerable
overlap between these outcomes and the factors that are emerging as key
components of subjective wellbeing in work currently being undertaken by ONS to
inform the development of a national index of wellbeing(ONS, 2011). Other
comparable studies have drawn similar conclusions. Mellor et al (2007) undertook a
detailed analysis of the experiences of older digital learners at regular intervals over
a twelve month period. They assessed subjective well-being, positive affect, self-
esteem, optimism and social connectedness. They argued that provision of internet
access in ‘residential facilities has the potential to improve the lives of older persons.’
Evidence both from the surveys and the case studies suggests that Get Digital may
have enhanced learners’ family and wider social relationships and contributed to an
increased sense of belonging. Learners developed new ways of communicating,
particularly via email and Skype, that amplified the quality of interaction with family
and friends. In addition, they developed closer friendships with other residents in
their schemes who were also participating in Get Digital. There is clearly a
qualitative difference between the kind of sustained and supportive interaction
fostered between residents through learning activities such as those offered by Get
Digital, and other kinds of one-off diversions like parties and outings that schemes
organise for their residents. However, these findings do raise questions about the
extent to which the social benefits in terms of enhanced relationships between
residents can be attributed to the learning provided by the Get Digital programme as
89
such, or could have been achieved by the introduction of new informal learning
activities of any kind into the scheme settings.
Findings from the ONS’s initial research on dimensions of well-being suggests that
the quality of their close social relationships is fundamental to many people’s
subjective well-being (ONS, 2011). The analysis of the impact of Get Digital on
learners’ social relationships also reflects finding from previous research about the
social benefits for older people of using technology. Although limited, these studies
suggest that technology can help to develop social contacts and increase social
participation (Independent Age, 2010) and help older people to keep in touch with
their families (Freshminds, 2010).
The Get Digital evidence also suggests another, if less tangible, way in which the
programme fostered a sense of belonging among learners. It is evident from the
comments made by case study participants that learning how to use a computer and
the internet helped to restore a sense of connection with contemporary society, often
exemplified in their relationships with younger relatives. As older people without
digital skills, many had felt excluded and ‘left behind.’ Their testimonies refer
repeatedly to the benefit of being able to understand what people are talking about,
of no longer feeling like they are ‘on a different planet,’ and to how surprised and
impressed their families had been when they showed off their new skills. Dickson
and Gregor (cited in Blaschke et al, 2009) argue that training in digital technologies
may not in itself be responsible for increases in feelings of social connectedness,
and that the training activity itself provides social interactions rather than the
technology specifically. Evidence from Get Digital suggests that a more complex
understanding is called for, which recognises how the act of learning, the skills
learned and the specific subject being studied can all generate new and different
kinds of social connections for older digital learners.
Get Digital may also have supported participants’ wellbeing by enabling them to
exercise a greater degree of autonomy and control over certain aspects of their lives,
particularly in relation to accessing goods and services. The link between digital
inclusion and consumer empowerment is an important one in policy terms. The
government’s consumer empowerment strategy aims to, ‘Put ... power in the hands
90
of consumers, so that they are better able to choose between suppliers ... to get the
best deals for themselves individually and collectively, while also putting pressure on
businesses to be more efficient and innovative.’ The role of new technology is
prominent in the strategy, with the potential that it brings for people to, ‘find, compare
and purchase goods and services.’ (BIS, 2011). Comparing the prices of goods and
services, and in some cases making purchases on line, were some of the more
popular online activities reported by Get Digital learners.
Although limited, the evidence also points to the role that digital inclusion initiatives
like Get Digital have to support both improved access to and use of public services,
and enhanced service user voice. This is an important area to consider because of
the growing policy agenda around ‘choice and control’, with its aim of empowering
people to influence the planning and delivery of the services they use. The Open
Public Services white paper articulates this direction for service user empowerment
in relation to public services, with the aim of making services more directly
accountable and responsive to the users and potential users through a range of
mechanisms which support ‘voice, transparency and choice’. Digital technologies
are fundamental to the open public services agenda. The white paper states:
The Government has committed to design and deliver all information and
transactional services digitally by default. Supported by assisted digital
services, advice and guidance should also move online as expertise develops
to ensure that everyone can benefit from digitised service provision.
Government engagement and communication with the public will also
increasingly be digital by default, utilising the power of digital communication
and social media to help drive the virtuous circle of digital take-up. (Cabinet
Office)
Get Digital did not specifically focus on equipping learners to access online public
services or to use digital technology as a mechanism to exercise ‘voice and choice’,
so there may have been a gap in learners’ awareness about their availability which
helps to explain why levels of use in this area were not higher. The very fact that
some learners explored this opportunity, and may have increased their use of
services and their level of control as a result, identifies it an area with potential for
91
further development. The evaluation data suggest that there is considerable scope
to expand on line service access among older people. Using email, finding
information on the internet and making consumer decisions were popular activities
among Get Digital learners, and these skills are broadly the same as those required
to engage with public services on line. However, as Soubarti’s study on older
people’s access to online public services stresses, increasing use among this cohort
depends on approaches which begin with the service needs and concerns of the
individuals themselves, rather than a techno-centric intent (Sourbati, 2008). The fact
that some learners were beginning to use online methods to communicate on
tenancy matters with their landlords or scheme managers suggests that this would
be a fruitful area for development in the context of housing based digital inclusion
projects. It would provide a starting point for showing people how technology could
benefit them as service users which had clear relevance and usefulness.
Health service provision has particular implications for older people, and there is
potential to increase the role of technology in enabling people to manage their own
and their family’s health. Demographic ageing is one factor which means that a
greater proportion of the population are likely to be living with chronic health
conditions, declining health and greater levels of dependency on the public health
and social care system. The focus of public health policy has increasingly been on
encouraging people of all ages to take greater responsibility for the management of
their own health and to adopt behaviour that is likely to foster good health. For older
people, this agenda includes the aim of enabling people to retain their independence
and avoid or delay the need to access residential care. The National Health Service
is expanding the role of the internet to complement face to face services and
communicate information and advice on healthy living to the public, as reflected in
websites such as NHS Choices. Online tools and resources to support individual
health management are also available through a range of third sector organisations
such as Age UK and Expert Patient. Evidence from Get Digital suggests that most
learners were not exploring these opportunities. However, as with other services,
there is scope to raise awareness and encourage use through targeted interventions.
92
5.3 Outcomes for landlords and schemes
This section explores the benefits of participation in Get Digital identified by the
organisations that applied for funding and hosted the initiatives. It suggests that
organisations recognised the importance of supporting the digital inclusion agenda
as it related to their residents, and understood that benefits could result for
themselves from doing so.
5.3.1 Findings
Market advantage
The benefit most commonly cited by landlord representatives who took part in the
case studies was the market advantage which participation in Get Digital was
perceived to have brought them. The provision of digital equipment and internet
access at their schemes was identified as a business asset and a selling point that
would only become more important in the future as they sought to attract potential
residents from younger cohorts for whom digital access was already a familiar and
expected feature of daily life. The following examples are typical of landlords’
comments.
It’s a forward thinking company with a lot of good initiatives and this has
now become one of them. [It has] become something for the marketing
department to focus on as it’s certainly improved the marketability of our
properties, because with a digital generation growing up they’re going to be
expecting digital equipment, internet access. Younger residents and potential
applicants are already web savvy and would expect this service to be
available.... There will undoubtedly be financial benefits. One thing an RSL
doesn’t like is empty flats because that’s lost revenue so it’s another attractive
proposition to keep flats occupied’
We are better placed for the future. The new generation of older people
coming in will be more used to ICT. This equipment will help to ‘sell’ the
93
properties. Sheltered schemes like this find it difficult to attract younger
clients.
It promotes the scheme and service and raises the profile which is good for
business and generating new custom. It keeps the scheme modern for young
older people.
Resident involvement
As discussed above, participation in Get Digital appears to have opened the way for
better communications between residents and their schemes and landlords, and
empowered some learners to use new approaches to making their voices heard.
Evidence from landlords and scheme managers indicates that they also welcomed
these changes and identified actual and anticipated benefits as a result of residents’
using digital technologies to become more involved in shaping the service they
receive.
Several landlord representatives at case study schemes indicated that one of their
motivations for participating in the programme was to encourage greater resident
involvement. At one scheme, the landlord stated that Get Digital had improved
relations between the landlord and residents by enabling it to counter the figurative
‘Big Bad Landlord’ image that some residents were perceived as harbouring. As a
consequence of these developments, residents had become more willing to take an
active role in scheme meetings and to voice their views and offer suggestions for
how things may be improved. (RH) Another observed that:
Residents are now quicker to come forward and provide information, as
they’ve got greater access to do so. A number of our different departments
have said that more tenants get in touch by email now
Similarly, another landlord stated that, ‘We feel we are responding to the needs of
the residents more.’ Several landlords noted that their policies and procedures are
available for residents to access on line.
94
In one case, it appeared that the landlord was able to use the opportunities for new
kinds of communication with residents to support efficiency savings. Having recently
gone through a major restructure, the landlord organisation was in the process of
abolishing the posts of both scheme manager and resident involvement officer. It is
not clear whether this staffing decision was prompted by Get Digital or whether Get
Digital was seen as a way of addressing the resulting deficit in resident involvement
mechanisms. Whichever was the case, the landlord stated that digital
communications had become increasingly important.
“If residents want to make a complaint or report a fault…or just want to access
information about [the organisation]. All the information is available on the
Internet. Keeping in touch with Housing Officers etc…this is going to be more
important than ever…whereas before a lot of it would have been done through
scheme manager”
This was presented as a positive development, which gave residents greater
independence to communicate directly with the landlord and replaced an ‘old
fashioned’ way of working. Not surprisingly, the scheme manager took a different
view, but also stated that residents had used email to send their views to the landlord
about the restructure.
Increased staff job satisfaction
The evidence suggests that scheme staff involved in the planning and delivery of Get
Digital found it a time consuming responsibility but that it was nevertheless very
rewarding. They pointed to a number of ways in which it had enabled them to
develop their own skills, knowledge and understanding, and which ultimately
enhanced their role and brought greater job satisfaction. Significantly, there are
indications that these changes are likely to have had a positive impact on the service
received by residents from the scheme.
Improvements in the quality of their relationships with residents were cited by
scheme managers as one of the most significant benefits of the programme from
their perspective.
95
Almost three-quarters of those who responded to the survey of scheme contacts
reported that the Get Digital programme had strengthened communications between
scheme staff and residents (see appendix 2, xxiii). As was discussed above, the
speed and ease with which residents could contact scheme staff and landlords was
valued by residents. It was also appreciated by scheme managers, some of whom
were responsible for multiple sites and consequently were absent from any one
scheme for much of the time. The fact that residents could keep in touch via
technology eased some of the pressure and anxiety of their role.
The case studies confirm that scheme contacts’ roles in facilitating and supporting
residents’ learning fostered a heightened understanding of their diverse needs and
interests and help to personalise the relationship. For example, the manager of one
scheme described how she had found that one learner had been a resistance fighter
in the Second World War, while another has traced his family line back to the
sixteenth century: She commented,
“They became people instead of a number on the door”.
At another scheme, the manager suggested that the programme had challenged
staffs’ perceptions about the capabilities and potential of older people. She stated:
‘This was a valuable activity, getting staff to see these people are progressing
and enjoying learning. ... These aren’t just older people who are waiting to go,
they are waiting to take on new things’.
The programme also provided managers and staff with an opportunity to learn and
develop their own skills. The manger at one scheme said that taking part in the
initial training meeting and conferences run by Digital Unite widened her horizons
and motivated her greatly. At another scheme, the scheme contact reported that
the greater skills and confidence he gained in using computers to carry out
administrative tasks improved his job satisfaction.
Better community links
96
Just over half the scheme contacts responding to the survey stated that they
believed Get Digital had improved links between the scheme and the local
community. From the outset, several landlords and schemes were particularly
attracted to the programme by the opportunities it offered to develop their schemes’
relationships with the wider community, both by building on existing arrangements
and by developing new contacts. For example, one scheme aimed to develop the
scheme as a community IT hub, and others hoped that they would become a place
where residents could meet and interact with young people from local schools.
Considerable variations were apparent in the strength of the community partnerships
developed as a result of Get Digital across the twelve case study sites. However, for
participating schemes and landlords, building these links brought benefits by
providing access to additional resources via partners, and strengthening their profile
and reputation locally.
5.3.2 Discussion
When Get Digital was launched, it was envisaged that local authorities would take
forward the digital inclusion agenda in sheltered housing. Since then, the public
funding landscape has changed dramatically, resulting in recognition that the
impetus for this kind of work, including funding to initiate activity, will have to be
secured from landlords. As a result, the business case which accompanies this
evaluation is directed at making the case to sheltered housing providers, and in
doing so it draws on some of the evidence from this study. However, it also means
that landlords were not a main focus for the evaluation’s data collection because
they were envisaged as having a less critical role in sustaining the work.
Nevertheless, a number of benefits have been identified which can contribute to
making a case for landlord investment in digital inclusion projects. These benefits
reflect those put forward in other studies, and can be broadly split into two
categories: those which impact on the landlord’s bottom line, such as enhanced
reputation, more efficient staffing and easier and swifter communication; and those
which contribute to the organisation’s social purposes, such as supporting diversity
and service user independence (CSHS, 2007).
97
Greater levels of tenant involvement in shaping the planning and delivery of housing
services has been identified as an outcome for both residents and landlords. For
residents, it is about empowerment. From the landlord perspective, it is an important
consideration for social housing providers, as the new Regulatory Framework for
Social Housing in England proposes the introduction of a tenant involvement and
empowerment standard which requires that:
Registered providers must offer tenants support so that they are more able to
be effectively engaged, involved and empowered .(TSA, 2011) [Cassiopeia
say this is out of date, but I can’t find anything superseding it]
Through the government-funded Tenant Empowerment Programme, social landlords
are being encouraged to recognise the benefits that greater resident involvement
can bring in terms of increased tenant satisfaction, and on-line resources have been
developed to support both landlords and tenants to engage with this agenda.
By creating opportunities for different kinds of contact between scheme staff and
their tenants, the programme enabled new relationships and understanding to
develop. Arguably, this benefit was realised in part at least because of the distinctive
focus of the programme on digital skills and on working with the interests of learners.
This not only meant that learners were engaging in something that was deemed by
many to be particularly challenging for older people, but also that there was a natural
breadth to the range of ideas and issues that were explored by learners.
5.4 Outcomes for community partners
This section discusses the benefits to community partners of participation in Get
Digital. For organisations who worked with schemes, the programme provided a
valuable link with the local community and an opportunity for social and civic
participation through voluntary action.
5.4.1 Findings
Strengthened role in the community
98
Several community partners stated that Get Digital had enhanced their
organisation’s role in the community. They believed that taking part in the
programme had raised their profile and presented a positive image locally. One
school that contributed to a case study, and which had IT specialist status, reported
that acting as a partner had provided it with a valuable opportunity to make its
considerable resources and expertise available to with wider community, which in
turn contributed to the school’s Civic Action Plan.
Building skills and knowledge around volunteering
Particularly for community partners who worked with young people, participation in
the programme presented an opportunity to promote and develop skills, knowledge
and awareness in relation to volunteering. Schools and youth groups who
contributed to the case studies stated that one of the chief benefits for their
organisation was the way that working with learners fostered young people’s
understanding of the value of volunteering.
The inter-generational dimension to the experience was considered to have been
particularly developmental, as it enabled young people to work alongside others
whose lives, experiences and backgrounds were different from theirs. Many young
people themselves welcomed the opportunity and demonstrated passion and
commitment in their volunteering.
They gained benefits too in the form of enhanced CVs and university applications,
and in credits towards both academic qualifications such as the International
Baccalaureate and extra-curricular awards such as Duke of Edinburgh Award.
5.4.2 Discussion
The evidence from the evaluation on the impact of Get Digital on community partners
is limited. It was gathered through the case studies, and in some of the cases it was
evident that development of this element of the initiative had been less successful
than other aspects. However, there is a case to be made for encouraging schemes
to cultivate closer links with external organisations as a way of helping to take
99
forward digital inclusion activity in the future. In policy terms, it has the potential to
contribute to several key agendas. By providing a bridge between residents of
sheltered housing schemes and the wider community, including young people, it can
help to foster a greater sense of social connectedness among older people and
thereby enhance their well-being. For community partners, it can provide
volunteering opportunities in a way that is consistent with government’s aspiration to
build a ‘big society’ in which individuals contribute to their community through
voluntary action. The evaluation’s findings suggest that the programme may have
helped to develop the values, attitudes and practices around voluntary social action
that are central to the pursuit of the big society agenda.
100
Section 6:
Sustainability and legacy
101
6. Sustainability and legacy
As Section 5 of this report has suggested, at the end of the Get Digital funded period
many learners were keen to continue practising and developing their skills.
Meanwhile, schemes and landlords could identify benefits from the work and wanted
both to see existing learners continue their learning and to expand the project to
attract new learners. However tutors, scheme contacts and learners themselves
pointed to a number of factors they argued needed to be taken into account if this
were to happen. Most importantly, they highlighted the following areas of concern:
the need for access to some form of tutoring or learning support, particularly
for those learners who had not yet developed the confidence to use
computers and practise on their own and for those who wanted to build on
their existing skills;
the challenge of supporting and encouraging people to participate when the
activity was not linked to a formal programme;
the challenge of involving new learners, and taking the initiative beyond those
who have already been engaged through the funded programme;
funding for consumables (e.g. printer cartridges, paper);
technical support for the maintenance and repair of IT equipment.
This section discusses evidence from the case studies and from a survey of users of
the Get Digital online toolkits which suggests the ways in which learners, schemes
and landlords proposed to take forward digital inclusion activity at scheme level. It
sheds light on some potential solutions that are being explored to the challenges
outlined above. These messages provide an indication of the opportunities and
issues that are likely to confront other digital inclusion initiatives within sheltered
housing schemes, where there is no longer significant government grant funding to
support such work.
102
6.1 Findings
6.1.1 Strategic commitment from landlord
Several case studies identified evidence of a strategic commitment from the landlord
organisation to provide resource to enable digital inclusion activity to continue
beyond the Get Digital funded period and to extend activity beyond those schemes
that received Get Digital funding. Landlord representatives who were interviewed for
the case study stated that participation in the programme had confirmed the value of
digital literacy for older people and strengthened their organisation’s commitment to
promoting digital inclusion.
As a result, in one scheme, ICT access and digital literacy programmes had been
included in the annual budget setting round, and specific commitments and targets
had been identified in the 2011-13 Community Strategy Action Plan. A budget of
£1,000 had been allocated to each scheme in the landlord group to support the work.
In another case, the landlord representative said,
“We are continuing Get Digital effectively without Get Digital funding”.
Funding to continue and extend the work had been secured through successful bids
to the landlord’s internal Efficiencies Fund. Approximately £25,000 had been spent
on bringing another twelve schemes within the landlord group online, with priority
being give to those schemes that had made unsuccessful applications to Get Digital.
Another landlord had allocated funding from the community development budget to
digital inclusion activity, including its extension to other schemes. At least two of the
case study landlords aimed to see their Get Digital schemes develop into local IT
hubs, and this kind of strategic vision helped to underpin their commitment to the
work. Potentially critical infrastructure in the form of access to technical support was
also provided to some schemes by landlord organisations via their central IT
department. In one case, the scheme’s communal computers were networked to the
landlord organisation’s server, which was recognised by the tutor and scheme
contact as more secure and more sustainable than a stand-alone model. Several
case study participants identified the unresolved question of how technical support
103
would be obtained by residents in the event of equipment malfunction as a pitfall that
threatened the longer term sustainability of the initiative.
In the longer term, some landlords were considering covering the costs of
maintaining digital infrastructure via residents’ service charge. However, as one
interviewee stated, this would not be without its challenges because of the fact that
not all residents would necessarily want to use the facilities. Resolving it would
require negotiation and resident involvement, as had been employed to resolve
similar issues around the supply and funding of communal kitchens and charging
points for electric scooters.
Securing these kinds of commitment is likely to be a major factor determining
whether the work can be sustained locally over the longer term. The Rationale for
Digital Inclusion by Landlords that has been developed alongside this evaluation
aims to articulate to the spectrum of types of sheltered housing landlords the value of
investment in digital inclusion initiatives, as a way of encouraging support for the
work.
6.1.2 Self-organised learning groups
At least half of the case study sites indicated that learners were organising their own
computer clubs as a way of maintaining motivation, encouraging participation and
securing some funding and resource to support on-going activity. The clubs were
generally run on a fee-paying membership basis, with members being charged a
weekly subscription to cover the costs of consumables and broadband, and
potentially to pay for additional training and equipment. Learners proposed various
ideas for further fundraising activities, including making and selling greetings cards,
calendars and books of poems and recipes, and holding bring and buy sales.
Some of the self-organised computer clubs hoped to pay for occasional professional
tutor support, and indeed several indicated that they saw tutor involvement on an ad
hoc basis as essential to the on-going success of the project, particularly in terms of
supporting less confident learners or helping people to try completely new things.
However, it was also recognised that volunteer peer mentors could play a vital role in
104
making the work sustainable by providing an enthusiastic focus for computer use
within a scheme and offering guidance and encouragement to keep fellow residents
engaged or inspire new people to try out the equipment Several case studies
described how learners had taken on the peer mentor role and were supporting both
new and established learners. One scheme contact said:
‘We have got a couple of tenants who are a focal point for other tenants to go
to. They are offering to show them. ... They can still remember what it’s like
to be a complete beginner so they can empathise.’
In a number of cases, one peer learning mentor had come forward and efforts were
being made by the scheme contact to encourage others to take on the role so that
the responsibility for sustaining this branch of activity did not rest with a single
resident.
Evidence from the evaluation suggests that scheme managers or other scheme staff
helped with the setting up of self-organised learning groups and that they provided
help to peer learning champions. It was, however, also apparent at some sites that
the future of these posts was in doubt. Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the Time
3 scheme contacts’ questionnaire stated that that residents, staff and managers
worked together to decide the future shape of IT training and provision after the end
of Get Digital’s funded period. In less than ten per cent of cases residents planned
for the future without any support (see figure 29 below). There was some evidence
of financial support from schemes with the cost of maintaining broadband
connections.
As was discussed above, the provision by the landlord of some core infrastructure
resource to cover services such as connectivity and technical maintenance can help
to address potential stumbling blocks to sustainability.
105
Figure 29: How far residents were involved in planning ICT provision and
training in the future
Source: Scheme contacts Time 3 survey (see Appendix 1c)
70 61
Proportion of schemes (%)
60
50
40
30 26
20
9
10 4
0
Residents planned Residents made Residents, staff Residents were
future ICT suggestions about and managers not involved in
provision and future ICT decided together future ICT
training provision and future ICT provision and
training provision and training
training
How far residents were involved in planning ICT provision in the
future
Materials to support peer learning champions and other learners to develop both
their digital skills and their skills to support the learning of others and the
establishment of self-organised learning groups are available, but the evaluation did
not identify widespread evidence of their use.6 It is also worth noting that, as
younger residents enter sheltered housing schemes in the future who have better
developed digital skills, the pool of potential peer mentors is likely to increase and
could be actively fostered.
5.3 Developing community partnerships
The findings discussed in earlier chapters of this report suggest that community
partnerships were hugely beneficial to some schemes, but that others struggled to
maximise the benefits that this element of the programme offered.
6
See, for example, http://getdigital.org.uk/resources/; www.go-on.co.uk (Digital champions’ toolkit);
www.communitylearningchampions.org.uk (Toolkit for Learning Champions); www.selforganisedlearning.com
(Toolkit on setting up learning clubs and groups).
106
However, both those schemes that had established successful partnerships during
the funded period and those that had struggled to do so identified community
partnerships as a key way in which they intended to support the continuation and
extension of digital inclusion activity. For those who had not been able to develop
strong links during the funded period, this was viewed as a necessary but
challenging task, due to the time required to establish effective relationships and the
lack of resources now available to enable staff to do so.
Community partners were identified as a source of both paid tutors and volunteer
support workers for learners. The local community development trust which
provided much of the drive and direction for Get Digital at one case study site was
not only going to provide a tutor in the future, but also planned to use its own tutors
to roll out the programme to neighbouring schemes. Several schemes stated that
they had begun to develop links with Age UK through which they had securing
funding for an Age UK IT tutor. Although one scheme contact expressed concern
that bringing in a different tutor might prove problematic, she also stated that the
local Age UK thought the Get Digital resources were ‘great’ and therefore hoped that
there would be continuity of approach. Another scheme manager stated that
although he had approached Age UK, they were unable to help immediately as
demand for their digital inclusion services so outstripped supply.
Local schools and youth groups that had already provided volunteer support seemed
likely to continue to work with the schemes. At one scheme, agreement had been
reached with the school that students would:
visit once a week;
be available to answer questions;
not deliver a fixed programme, but provide tailored one-to-one support;
run mini-sessions where there was sufficient demand for a specific topic.
The hope was that this kind of regular support would not only support learners’ digital
skills development, but would also help to develop good social relationships between
learners and young volunteers and improve intergenerational understanding.
However, the issue was again raised by several schemes of the risks of relying on
107
volunteers who were not fully committed or lacked awareness of the context in which
they were working. Interviewees stressed the need to ensure that those who acted
in that capacity were adequately trained and supported to fulfil the role. One scheme
contact pointed out that volunteers and tutors did not just need to have IT skills, they
also needed to know how to work with learners at a very basic level. The community
development trust above as the prime mover in the development of the programme
at one scheme, planned to address this issue by working with the local school to
build the skills of pupils to work as volunteer IT mentors for older people.
It was not clear how other case study schemes or prospective community partners
proposed to approach the question, although as was noted above there are publicly
available resources to support such development.
Responses to the Wave 3 online survey provide a snapshot of use of the Get Digital
online materials, and suggest that these are providing a useful resource for
community partners and others seeking to work with schemes to deliver learning to
residents and to support and sustain digital learning. Respondents were almost
entirely positive in their comments about the usefulness of the resources, and as
figure 30 below suggests, the majority anticipated continuing to use them in the
future.
108
Figure 30: How Wave 3 schemes plan to use the resources in the future
Source: Wave 3 online survey (see Appendix 1h)
35
30
Number of Wave 3 schemes
30 27
25 23
20 17
15
9 8
10
5
5
0
To deliver learning to
There are no plans to
learning continues in
To improve access to
To improve access to
To deliver training to
To involve other
internet for residents
organisations
computers and the
computers and the
individuals or
use the resources
To ensure digital
internet for staff
the future
residents
staff
How resources will be used in the future
6.2 Discussion
Securing landlord commitment is likely to be a major factor determining whether the
work can be sustained at scheme level over the longer term. However, as we have
noted elsewhere in this report, the sheltered housing sector includes a wide variety
of types of provider and not all have the scale, resources or organisational structures
to implement the kinds of developments outlined above. The Rationale for Digital
Inclusion by Landlords that has been developed alongside this evaluation aims to
articulate to sheltered housing landlords the value of investment in digital inclusion
initiatives, as a way of encouraging support for the work.
The development of self-organised learning groups as an approach to taking forward
the digital inclusion agenda with older people in sheltered housing schemes
highlights important ways in which Get Digital and its legacy are contributing to new
and evolving policy agendas.
109
The government review currently underway of informal adult and community learning
(IACL) stresses that part of the value of this kind of learning is to be found in the way
that it:
‘supports the development of the Big Society, in the way it is planned and
delivered as well as through the activity it funds, by helping people develop
the confidence and skills to influence decision-making in public services’ (BIS,
2011a).
Maximising the contribution of IACL to the development of the Big Society is a key
objective of the review. In particular, it is anticipated that one way in which this
contribution will be strengthened is:
‘by supporting social action by encouraging and enabling people to become
volunteer learning champions and play a more active part in local
communities.’
It is not possible to tell from the evaluation data whether those learners who took on
the peer mentor / learning champion role as a result of Get Digital had previous or
current experience of other volunteering activity. However, it is evident that the
programme provided a route through which some learners were motivated to take on
an active volunteering role promoting digital inclusion within their community. In
doing so, they appear to have reflected the policy aspiration that local voluntary
action will in some measure help to fill the breach in service provision caused by
national austerity measures and the ceasing of large-scale publicly funded initiatives.
The work of the Community Learning Champions National Support Programme
indicates that there is an appetite among some learners to take on this kind of role,
and that with appropriate support they can be highly effective at engaging and
support new people into learning (NIACE, 2011). Nevertheless, the important point
made in Section 5 bears repeating here: this kind of voluntary action is unlikely to
flourish if it does not take place within an appropriate framework of support and
resource.
110
Securing sustainability may also be about widening the digital inclusion agenda. As
section 4 of this report showed, the initial phase of the evaluation explored people’s
attitudes to and experiences of using a wide range of types of digital technology and
not simply computers. It was clear from this work that many older people had
access to, if not confidence in using, various forms of equipment including, for
example, digital TVs and mobile phones. Yet Get Digital focused on providing
access to computers, with a particular focus on introducing and encouraging use fo
the internet.
The prevalence of digital equipment in people’s lives, together with the move
towards the use of portable personal devices such as smart phones and iPads to
access the internet, suggests that it would be appropriate for digital inclusion
initiatives for older people to focus beyond computers. Approaches outlined above,
including the development of peer champions and volunteer mentors, could provide
a way of supporting such a widening of the agenda. This is not to advocate that
digital inclusion activity be confined to working with people who have their own
personal equipment, but rather to suggest that it could complement computer based
learning and in doing so would enable a broader range of skills development
111
Section 7:
Conclusions
112
6. Conclusions
6.1 Evaluation objectives
As has previously been noted in this report, the wider policy and practice backdrop
against which both Get Digital was implemented and this study was carried out
changed considerably during the course of the work. Consequently, some of the
detail in the original evaluation objectives no longer reflects current concerns. This
conclusion returns to those objectives, and summarises how the findings from the
impact study addresses them and what light these messages shed on the
development and implementation of future digital inclusion initiatives in sheltered
housing.
Objective 1: To assess whether equipment and training was in place and
operating effectively
One of the fundamental strengths of Get Digital was its provision of both IT
equipment and training. Evidence from this and other studies makes clear that
simply giving digitally excluded older people physical access to computers is unlikely
to encourage them to learn digital skills. By providing tutors, many of whom were
highly skilled in engaging and supporting unconfident learners, Get Digital was able
to address other practical and attitudinal barriers faced by residents. Tutors
designed the learning around the specific needs and interests of learners, and
identified the ‘triggers’ that would motivate and inspire individuals. Around half of all
residents at participating schemes had some involvement with the programme.
The generic training programme was designed to introduce learners to a wide range
of possible uses of computers and the internet. However, particularly for learners
with little or no previous experience, the pace and structure of the programme were
too quick and too prescriptive, with insufficient time allowed to practise skills and
consolidate learning before moving on to the next topic. Greater flexibility would
113
have been welcomed, although tutors did endeavour to adapt the training to fit with
what learners needed.
The funding for equipment enabled schemes to buy kit that supported accessibility,
including specialist hardware (e.g. large format keyboards) and software.
The key success factors that determine the effectiveness of implementation are
discussed under objective 5 below.
Objective 2: To assess behavioural and attitudinal changes of participating
sheltered housing residents in relation to information and communications
technology.
This evaluation found that Get Digital contributed to the digital inclusion of some
older people living in sheltered housing schemes. Many of those who took part
already had access to some forms of digital technology. However, they were not
confident users, some expressed a fear of technology and worried that learning
about computers was beyond them. Participation in the Get Digital training brought
about demonstrable shifts in both their attitudes and behaviours. Frequency of use
of computers increased, and learners reported being more confident to undertake a
number of online activities. They anticipated continuing to use computers in the
future, and were more positive in their views about the role and usefulness of
computers.
The range of actual types of computer and internet-based activities that most
learners reported carrying out was fairly limited and mostly confined to using email or
searching the web. In view of the short length of the programme and for many, the
newness of the skills being learned, this is not surprising.
Objective 3: To assess the perceived impact on participating residents, giving
particular attention to relevant Public Service Agreement quality of life indicators
relating to poverty, health, satisfaction with home and neighbourhood and
support for independent living.
PSA indicators are no longer part of the public policy framework and therefore they
have not been used as a category of analysis in this report.
114
As well as developing learners’ digital skills, Get Digital appears to have contributed
towards a range of wider social outcomes, including stronger social relationships,
social inclusion, more empowered consumption and use of services, including
housing services. It is likely that these outcomes in turn contributed to maintaining
and enhancing a positive sense of wellbeing among learners. The evidence
suggests that these outcomes may be attributed to the fact that this was a learning
programme focused on the development of digital skills and to the integrated
package of support which it provided through the Get Digital model.
The evidence demonstrates how digital inclusion initiatives for older people have
potential to contribute to a range of current policy concerns. Their role in relation to
the following areas in particular is suggested by the findings of this evaluation:
contributing to the Big Society, by creating opportunities for volunteering
among learners and community partners, strengthening links between
schemes and the wider community and encouraging civic participation;
promoting wellbeing in later life, by strengthening older people’s social
relationships, fostering social inclusion and a sense of belonging, enabling
more effective health management and empowering people to make
decisions about issues that affect their lives;
introducing greater individual choice and control in relation to public services,
by empowering older people to access information and to engage more
directly and critically with public service providers;
empowering consumers to make informed decisions about spending on goods
and services;
fostering participation in informal adult and community learning, including
through the development of self-organised learning groups and through
strengthening the role of learning champion
The evaluation focused on the initial Get Digital intervention and it is not surprising
that some areas in which the potential to deliver positive outcomes was only slightly
apparent. For example, the potential for the internet to support access to public
services, citizen involvement, consumer empowerment and health management,
115
was evident in only a small number of cases and suggests that much more could be
achieved in these areas with time and targeted awareness raising.
Objective 4: To assess the contribution to digital inclusion of different elements
of the programme.
The distinctive and effective feature of Get Digital was its integration of a range of
elements into a single coherent and holistic digital inclusion programme. The
provision of specialist tutors was regarded by many of those involved – residents and
scheme contacts - as fundamental to success, especially for those learners who
were new to computers. The training materials were considered to be high quality
and some tutors supplemented these by pointing learners towards free on-line
resources. The residential setting of the programme helped, because it fostered an
environment of peer learning and mutual support. Community partnerships showed
potential to enhance digital inclusion, being a route both for providing learners with
support to practice and for linking residents to the wider local community. Some
schemes struggled to develop this strand of work, due to the lack of existing
networks on which to build and the short timescale for implementation.
It is apparent that many learners found that the structured intervention was too short
and not intensive enough to enable them to develop the confidence to use
computers independently. This lack of confidence was reflected in a reluctance to
practise on the communal computers between training sessions where no other
support was available and a consequent atrophying of learning. Similarly, most
learners undertook only a relatively narrow range of online activities, limited in many
cases to use of email and searching for information related to hobbies, shopping and
daily life.
Objective 5: To identify key success factors
The study has highlighted a number of critical success factors in the establishment
and sustaining of digital inclusion activities with older people in sheltered housing. In
particular, initiatives appear to be most effective when they include:
116
individualised and flexible learning opportunities, with some input from
suitably qualified tutors who understand how to tailor training to the needs and
interests of learners or use of materials and resources which foster such an
approach;
learner involvement in the design and development of the initiative, including
making decisions about equipment purchases, location of equipment, fees
and charges and the content of learning;
support to practise, including one-to-one support for those who are complete
beginners, lack confidence in learning or computers, or who wish to try out
new things;
peer learning champions who can act as role models, provide one-to-one
support to practise, maintain enthusiasm, motivation and interest among
learners and encourage new learners to take part;
committed individuals within the scheme - who may be scheme managers,
learners or partners - to act as a focal point for the initiative, lead the work,
develop appropriate links and partnerships with other individuals and
organisations which can provide support and resources, troubleshoot and
encourage participation;
commitment from the scheme landlord, particularly in the provision of
infrastructure such as access to services for equipment maintenance and
technical support.
Objective 6: To assess the public value of investment in digital skills for older
people living in sheltered housing schemes, in order to support the development
of a business case for further investment and the implications for other services.
The shifting policy landscape means that the business case is now targeted at
landlords. Evidence from this evaluation on implementation, benefits and impact has
informed its development. It can be downloaded at www.niace.org.uk/current-
work/get-digital.
Objective 7: To identify approaches and resources for enabling sustainability.
The Rationale for Digital Inclusion by Landlords, together with the materials and
resources on the Get Digital website are designed to sustain the Get Digital
117
approach. They articulate the arguments for funding the work and the practical steps
to implement it, with the aim of widening participation beyond the original funded
schemes.
Evidence from participating schemes highlighted a number of possible approaches
to funding digital inclusion activity: through landlord’s core budget; through the
residents’ service charge and through subs or fees paid to a computer club. It was
clearly argued that access to some kind of specialist tuition, even if only bought in on
an occasional basis, was necessary to enable learners to develop new skills.
However, other peer and volunteer-based models – such as self-organised groups
and digital champions – have considerable potential to support learning and sustain
activity in a cost-effective way.
Objective 8: To assess the impact of the programme on other stakeholders
including registered social landlords and partners.
The experience of hosting Get Digital appears to have underlined for landlords the
potential value of supporting digital inclusion projects for residents. A range of
organisational benefits were attributed to participation in the programme. Landlords
and schemes highlighted the positive profile and consequent market advantage that
provision of digital technology and support for digital inclusion were believed to bring.
This was recognised as a factor that is likely to become increasingly significant for
sheltered housing providers as future cohorts of potential residents, who have grown
up with expectations of digital access, look to make choices about suitable
accommodation. Alongside this, the ways in which supporting residents’ digital skills
development helped landlords to take forward their responsibilities in relation to the
tenant involvement and empowerment agenda was stressed. Evidence was
presented both of more dynamic and responsive tenancy management by residents,
and of an apparently greater willingness by learners to participate in formal resident
involvement processes. It was also apparent that relationships between staff and
learners were strengthened by shared participation in digital learning activities, with
staff reporting increased job satisfaction and a clearer understanding of the needs
and concerns of individual residents.
118
6.2 Final reflections
Overall, Get Digital appears to have contributed to the digital inclusion of
participating older people. In addition, the programme’s experiences point to a
number of important messages about the value and potential of such initiatives, and
ways of implementing the model to deliver individual and public benefit. The study
has also highlighted a number of limitations and areas for development. In order to
address these, policy-makers and planners need to take account of five issues.
First, if the anticipated cost savings to the public purse from digital inclusion are to be
realised, older users’ awareness of government, local authority and National Health
Service websites needs to be raised and the benefits of using such sites need to be
promoted. Second, all of those involved in developing strategies to support older
residents to develop their digital skills need to include ways of: overcoming fears,
especially about costs, security and content of websites. Third, support needs to be
given to initiatives which encourage learners to build confidence in learning how to
use technology; and involve peers, family members and volunteers in providing
ongoing support. Although the development of peer learning champions was not an
element of the Get Digital model, the evidence from this evaluation indicates that it
will need to be integral component of continuing and future digital inclusion initiatives
of this kind. Fourth, any marketing strategy needs to be tailored to the target group
and to use different sources and media in order to promote the benefits that older
people have identified as attracting them to Get Digital. The key ‘hooks’ that attract
older people have been identified as increased contact with family and friends,
saving money and enriching their interests and hobbies. And finally, support for
landlords and schemes to develop and sustain digital inclusion activity needs to
recognise and reflect the variety of provision – in terms of size, staff and
management structures, resident profile and culture and values – in the sheltered
housing sector. While some schemes are well-placed in these respects to develop
and sustain the work, others may not yet have the resources, relationships and
practices in place on which to build.
119
Section 7:
References
120
7. References
Age Concern and Help the Aged (2009) Introducing another world: older people and
digital inclusion.
Age UK (2010) Factsheet 64: Sheltered Housing.
Aldridge, F. (2009) Enhancing Informal Learning in Care Settings.
Berry, R., (2011) Older People and the Internet – Towards and system map of digital
exclusion , (London: The International Longevity Centre).
BIS (2010) Skills for sustainable growth: Consultation on the future direction of skills
policy.
BIS (2011) Consumer empowerment strategy. Better choices, better deals:
consumers powering growth.
BIS (2011a) New Challenges, New Chances: next steps in implementing the further
education reform programme.
Blaschke, C.M., Freddolino, P.P., and Mullen, E.E., (2009) ‘Ageing and
Technology: A Review of the Research Literature,’ British Journal of Social Work vol
39, p641-656
Cameron (2010) Cameron launches the ‘Big Society’. BBC News, 19 July 2010.
Cresci, .M.K, Yarandi, N.Y., Morrell, R.W., (2010) ‘Pro-nets Versus No-Nets:
Differences in Urban Older Adults Predilections for Internet Use,’ Educational
Gerontology, Vol 36: 500-520
CSHS (2007) Good Practice Guide No. 5: Digital inclusion for older people.
DCLG (2010) Department for Communities and Local Government Draft Structural
Reform Plan.
121
Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Business Plan 2011-
2015.
DCMS and BIS (2009) Digital Britain
Dutton, W. H., Helsper, E.J. & Gerber, M.M. (2009) The Internet in Britain 2009.
Oxford:
Oxford University, Oxford Internet Institute. (OxIS)
Forrest, C., Lawton, J., Adams, A., Louth, T. and Swain, I. (2007) ‘The impact of
learner voice on quality improvement’ in D. Collison (ed.) Leadership and the
Learner Voice (Lancaster: CEL)
Freshminds (2009) Does the Internet improve lives?
Freshminds. (2010) Digital engagement – understanding customers. UKonline
Centres.
Futurelab (2006) Learner Voice (Bristol: Futurelab).
Hannon, C. and Bradwell, P. (2008) Web I’m 64: ageing, the internet and digital
inclusion (Demos).
Hendry, B., Swinney, J. and Ward, J. (2008) Learners’ Forums: a guide for learners
(Leicester: NIACE).
Hernandez-Encuentra, E., Pousada, M., Gomez-Zuniga, B., (2009), ‘ICT and Older
People: Beyond Usability,’ Educational Gerontology, Vol. 35 p226-245
HM Government (2009) Building a Society for All Ages.
HM Government (2011) Open Public Services White Paper.
Independent Age (2010) Older People, technology and community: the potential of
technology to help older people renew or develop social contacts and to actively
engage in their communities. (London: Independent Age).
122
IPSOS MORI (2010) Technology Tracker.
Lane Fox, M. (2010) Manifesto for a Networked Nation. London: Raceonline
McNair, S. (2009) Demography and Lifelong Learning. IFLL Thematic Paper 1.
Leicester: NIACE.
Mikkola, K., and Halonen, R., “Nonsense?” – ICT Perceived by The Elderly (2011),
European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems,
May 30-31 2011 Athens
Morris, E. (2009) Independent Review of ICT User Skills
NIACE (2006) Say What You Like! (Leicester: NIACE).
NIACE (2009) Transformation Fund Report (Leicester: NIACE). See also:
www.transformatinfund.org.uk
NIACE (2010) Lifelong Learning: Contributing to wellbeing and prosperity. Leicester:
NIACE.
Price Waterhouse Coopers (2009) Champion for Digital Inclusion: The Economic
Case for Digital Inclusion
Office for National Statistics (2010) Internet Access. Household and Individuals.
Statistical Bulletin August 2010. (Based on National Statistics Opinion [Omnibus
survey]).
Pew Research Center (2010) Millennials. Confident. Connected. Open to Change.
Randall, C. (2010) e-Society, Social Trends 41 (Office for National Statistics).
Roberts, S. (2009) The Fictions, Fact and Future of Older People and Technology.
London: The International Longevity Centre.
123
Sourbati, M (2008) ‘On older people, internet access and electronic service delivery.
A study in sheltered homes, in The Social Dynamics of Information and
Communications Technology (London: Ashgate).
Sourbati, M (2009) ‘It could be useful but not for me at the moment: older people,
internet access and public service provision,’ New Media and Society 11 (7), pp.
1083-1100.
TSA (2011) A New Regulatory Framework for Social Housing in England.
Wong, Y.C., Fung, .J.Y.C., Kwong Law, C., Lam, J.C.Y., Lee, V.W.P, (2009)
‘Tackling the digital divide,’ British Journal of Social Work, Vol.39 p 754-767
124
Appendix 1: Methodology
The research comprised an eighteen month investigation into the impact of the Get
Digital Programme on a range of stakeholders including residents, sheltered housing
schemes, landlords and community partners. A mixed methods approach was
adopted, combining the collection of quantitative data from residents, scheme
contacts and tutors across the programme, with that of qualitative data from twelve
participating schemes, selected as case study sites.
In taking this approach, the evaluation sought to provide robust statistical data to
demonstrate the extent to which the Get Digital programme impacted upon residents
and staff across all participating schemes. To complement this, data collected
through the case studies provides a more detailed examination of both the impact of
the programme and the processes through which this impact was realised in a
smaller number of schemes. Furthermore, the case study approach enabled data to
be collected from a much wider range of stakeholders, including landlords and
community partners, thereby providing a much more holistic perspective on the
overall impact of the programme in these locations.
In triangulating different types and sources of data we have been able to develop a
picture of the programme’s role in developing the attitudes, knowledge, skills and
practices of those who took part and of the factors which contributed to successful
implementation.
An economic evaluation of the impact of Get Digital was not within the scope of this
study, although data collected as part of the evaluation has been included in the
Rationale for Digital Inclusion by Landlords available at [link]
Copies of research instruments can be found at Appendix 1.
Quantitative data
Surveys were used to collect quantitative data from learners, scheme contacts,
tutors and users of the Get Digital website, across the whole of the programme.
125
The design of each survey was based upon the aims and objectives of the
evaluation and drew heavily on existing literature and survey questions. Additional
areas of questioning were also included at the request of DWP, to explore the
potential impact of the programme on a wide range of social policy areas.
Table 1 below provides a summary of when data was collected, from whom, and
using which method. The study commenced in June 2010, as sessions began within
the first schemes and was completed in July 2011.
126
Table 1: Summary of quantitative data collection
Data collection
Data collection point Informant group
method
At initial session, Get set up, get enthused Paper-based
Residents
(from June 2010) survey
Time 1
At initial session, Get set up, get enthused Paper-based
Scheme contacts
(from June 2010) survey
At the final learning session (by end of March Paper-based
Residents
2011) survey
At the end of tutors’ engagement Paper-based
Time 2 Scheme contacts
at each scheme (by end of March 2011) survey
At the end of tutors’ engagement
Tutors Online survey
at each scheme (by end of March 2011)
At least two months after the final learning Paper-based
Residents
session (May-July 2011) survey
At least two months after the final learning
Time 3 Scheme contacts Online survey
session (May-July 2011)
During July 2011 Wave 3 Online survey
Learner surveys
Between June 2010 and July 2011, and using a longitudinal research design, the
study sought to collect data from all residents who participated in the Get Digital
programme. Participants were surveyed at three time points: Time 1 (baseline), prior
to the commencement of the learning programme; Time 2 at the end of the learning
programme; Time 3 at least two months after the end of the learning programme.
Paper- based questionnaires were used at all three time points. Although the use of
on-line surveys were considered for the collection of Time 3 data, insight gained
during the fieldwork suggested that while residents were becoming more confident in
127
their use of ICT, many would be unwilling to submit personal information in this
format.
In order not to duplicate effort and cause potential confusion amongst participants,
questionnaires were administered by tutors at Time 1 and 2 and by scheme contacts
at Time 3. The use of tutors ensured that a single point of contact between the
resident and the Get Digital programme was retained, and that existing relationships
could be used to secure maximum response. Although a pragmatic approach to
undertaking the evaluation, the administration of the surveys by an interested party
did introduce potential for bias. By Time 3, tutors were no longer involved with
schemes and therefore surveys were administered by scheme contacts.
A longitudinal study that aims to follow the same individuals over any extended
period has to take account of the numbers who are likely to become unavailable as
time goes on (the attrition rate). For the residents’ survey, the original sample
included all residents (2,947) who were allocated an id number as part of the Get
Digital Programme. On this basis, a 71 per cent response rate was achieved at T1,
43 per cent at T2 and 18 per cent at T3. In practice, however the picture is more
complex; some participants were involved with the programme from the outset and
therefore did not complete a questionnaire at T1, while others who were involved at
the outset did not continue with the programme to the final session. Across the three
time points, completed questionnaires were received from 2,328 residents in 192
schemes[1]. In order to address this complexity, throughout the report, we have
treated T1, T2 and T3 respondents as separate cohorts, with longitudinal data
available across all three time points for 309 residents (10% of T1 respondents)
Table 3 below provides a summary of the number of responses and response rates
at each time point.
[1]
Out of the 196 schemes funded as part of the Get Digital programme
128
Table 2: Summary of responses
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Response Response Response
Number Number Number
rate rate rate
Learners 2,101 71% 1,267 43% 530 18%
Scheme contacts 122 62% 192 98% 113 58%
Tutors n/a n/a 181 92% n/a n/a
Wave 3 survey n/a n/a n/a n/a 47 12%
Note: Response rates have been calculated from the total number of residents who
were allocated an id number as part of the programme (2,947)
The resident surveys covered the following topics (data were collected at all three
time points unless stated otherwise):
demographic data such as age, gender and ethnicity (collected at Time 1
only);
current usage (if any) of ICT (e.g. email, Skype, searching the internet for
information, visiting government websites), including levels of confidence and
frequency of use;
attitudes towards the internet;
social and community engagement;
self-reported health and well-being;
use of, and contact with, social care, health and housing providers;
self-reported benefits gained through involvement in the scheme and
improved access to, and use of, ICT (collected at Times 2 and 3 only);
future intentions to use ICT (collected at Times 2 and 3 only); and
views of support and training provided through the project (collected at Times
2 and 3 only).
Scheme contact surveys
129
Scheme contacts (scheme managers or support staff) were surveyed at the same
three time points as residents: Time 1 (baseline), prior to the commencement of the
learning programme; Time 2 at the end of the learning programme; Time 3 at least
two months after the end of the learning programme.
Paper-based questionnaires were distributed to scheme contacts through tutors at
Times 1 and 2. At Time 3, scheme contacts were invited by the evaluation team to
take part in an online survey. Across the three time points, completed questionnaires
were received from 195 of the 196 scheme contacts; 66 scheme contacts returned
completed questionnaires at all three time points. Table 3 above provides a
summary of the number of responses and response rates at each time point.
At Time 1, the scheme contact survey covered the following:
total number of residents and staff at the scheme;
community organisations that provide services or support to the scheme;
ICT facilities, equipment and internet access already at the scheme; and
staff usage of ICT and level of confidence.
At Time 2 and 3, the scheme contact surveys covered the following:
ICT equipment and facilities purchased with both tranches of funding;
usage of communal ICT facilities and equipment;
community organisations that provided help as part of the programme;
ideas and plans for sustainability beyond the end of the funded programme;
staff usage of ICT and level of confidence; and
views of support and training provided through the project.
Tutor survey
At the end of the learning programme (Time 2), tutors were invited to take part in an
online survey. Although some tutors were involved with more than one scheme, they
130
were requested to submit one response per scheme. In total, 181 completed surveys
(92 per cent) were received from 68 tutors.
The tutor survey covered the following:
tutors views of support and training they received from Digital Unite as part of
the project;
extent of overall success of the project at the individual scheme and factors
that enabled successes; and
reflections on how the project could be improved.
Wave 3 online survey
In addition to the distribution of grant funding to 196 sheltered housing schemes, as
part of wave 1 and 2 of the Get Digital programme, a website featuring free
downloadable learning toolkits was also created (www.getdigital.org.uk) By dong
this, it was anticipated that the reach of the Get Digital programme could be
extended beyond those who had received funding; this group of users are referred to
as wave 3.
In order to evaluate the impact of this aspect of the programme, 396 individuals who
had accessed the toolkits were invited to take part in a short online survey during
July 2011. A total of 47 responses (12 per cent) were submitted.
The wave 3 survey covered the following:
capacity of response (e.g. landlord, scheme manager, resident, community
organisation) and which region of England they were based in;
their views of the presentation and usability of the website;
their views of the quality and usefulness of the learning resources; and how
the resources have been used or how they will be used in the future.
131
Qualitative data
The qualitative element of the study collected data from twelve sheltered housing
schemes funded as part of the Get Digital programme. Each scheme was treated as
a case study; that is the subject of extensive enquiry, undertaken with a view to
collecting detailed evidence over a period of time. This method also served as a
basis for raising broader issues in relation to the Get Digital programme.
Case study methodology was adopted in order to gather rich data on the impact of
the programme on different stakeholders; to illuminate processes that have
contributed to successful relationships, outcomes and impacts; identify approaches
to sustainability; and highlight lessons learnt. Case studies were conducted on the
basis that useful learning can be derived from schemes that encounter difficulties as
well as those who have been more successful.
The twelve case studies were selected, at the outset of the programme in order to
explore maximum variation of context and delivery, using the following criteria:
scheme wave;
region;
rural and urban locations;
community partnerships; and
delivery models.
A summary of the key characteristics of the twelve case studies chosen is displayed
in Table 1 below. Detailed reports of each of the case studies can be found at the
end of this report.
132
Table 3: Summary of case study sites
programmes for
scheme prior to
Previous digital
Landlord scope
On site scheme
programmes at
participating in
ICT equipment
Digital literacy
Landlord type
at scheme for
Scheme code
Non-resident
resident use
prior to GD?
residents at
Community
residents?
Number of
Number of
Number of
partner/s?
GD region
manager?
learners?
sheltered
schemes
schemes
Location
housing
scheme
literacy
Wave
GD?
GD
1 L/ SE RSL Regional 15 in No 2 R4 Rural No No 22 No Yes No
/ local local
area
1 L/ SE RSL Regional 13 Yes 1 U3 Urban Yes Yes 67 Yes Yes Yes
/ local
1 EM/ E RSL Sub- 9 Yes 2 R3 Rural Yes No 29 Yes Yes No
Regional
1 EM/ E RSL Regional 11 Yes 2 U2 Urban No No 73 Yes No No
/ local
1 WM/ LA Regional 11 Yes 2 U6 Urban Yes Yes 34 Yes Yes Yes
SW / local
1 WM/ RSL Regional 63 No 2 R6 Rural Yes No 30 No No Yes
SW
1 N RSL National More Yes 11 R5 Rural No No 43 Yes Yes No
133
2
2
2
2
1
Wave
N
N
N
SW
GD region
WM/
L/ SE
RSL
RSL
RSL
RSL
Landlord type
ALMO
Landlord scope
Local
/ local
National
Regional
Regional
Regional
National/
Number of
Table 3: Summary of case study sites
sheltered
22
23
31
50
the
the
8 in
than
41 in
housing
region
region
Previous digital
schemes
literacy
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
programmes for
Number of
residents?
1
1
3
1
2
schemes
participating in
GD
R2
R1
U4
U5
U1
Scheme code
Location
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Urban
ICT equipment
at scheme for
No
No
No
No
No
resident use
Digital literacy
prior to GD?
programmes at
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
scheme prior to
Number of
GD?
31
60
35
64
69
residents at
scheme
On site scheme
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
manager?
Non-resident
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
learners?
Community
No
No
No
No.
Yes
134
partner/s?
Each case study comprised two stages of data collection:
Stage 1: Focus groups were used to collect baseline data from residents at seven case study sites
at the initial session, Get set up, get enthused. Focus group topics included residents’ use of, and
attitudes towards, technology and their expectations of the Get Digital programme. For case study
schemes where initial focus groups were not conducted, the researcher approached the scheme
contact at the beginning of the delivery programme.
Stage 2: Once the learning programme had been completed, focus groups were conducted with
residents in all twelve case study sites. Focus group topics included residents’ experiences and
views of the Get Digital programme, the personal benefits and changes experienced as a result of
taking part in the programme, and their future intentions to use ICT equipment and facilities.
Residents were also encouraged to share testimonials, which might further highlight the benefits
and value of a digital inclusion programme.
Also at this stage, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with scheme contacts, landlords,
tutors and community partners. Where possible, these were conducted face-to-face during a visit to
the scheme. Where this was not possible, the interview was carried out by telephone.
Interviews with scheme contacts covered the following topics:
the way in which decisions were made at scheme level at the beginning of the programme
(e.g. which equipment to buy, how residents’ training needs were assess);
the role that staff played in the programme and time they spent supporting implementation;
the role of community partners in the programme and whether their involvement was
successful;
benefits and impact of the programme – to staff, residents and the scheme in general;
their reflections on the process of Get Digital;
plans for the future and sustainability of the project; and
advice they would offer other schemes/scheme managers.
Interviews with landlords covered the following topics:
their organisation’s participation in Get Digital;
benefits and impact to their organisation (e.g. financial, long-term);
time and other costs involved in taking part in the programme and reflections on value for
money; and
plans for the future and sustainability of the project.
Interviews with tutors covered the following topics:
their approach to delivering the learning programme (e.g. assessing residents needs,
tailoring the programme to residents’ needs);
training and support they received from Digital Unite;
process of Get Digital and the impact at schemes; and
their experience at other schemes (if applicable).
Interviews with community partners covered the following topics:
the role they played in the project;
benefits they have experienced as a result of the project;
whether they plan to be involved with the scheme in the future;
advice they would offer other community partners working with sheltered housing schemes.
In addition to the use of case studies, qualitative data was also collected from residents, scheme
contacts and tutors from across the programme through the use of open questions on survey
instruments.
Data collected from the case study research were written up as extensive individual case study
reports. Following this, two researchers worked together to carry out manual thematic analysis of all
data in the 12 reports. This collaborative approach allowed for researcher triangulation and required
the researchers to justify how findings were to be coded to one another, thus enhancing the validity
of the analysis.
Within analysis, equal attention was paid to each case study site. A deductive approach to data
analysis was employed: the analytic framework was predetermined prior to data analysis, in
accordance with the data collection tools. The broad themes comprising the analytic framework
were:
1. Impact of participation in Get Digital
2. The process of providing digital literacy programmers in housing schemes
3. Plans for the future and issues relating to sustainability.
Taking one broad theme at a time, data were explored. In most cases, sub-themes were identified
to group cross-cutting findings that could be evidenced across a range of sites in order to reflect on
the data set as a whole, as well as to identify distinctive features that were particularly pertinent to
an individual site.
The sub-themes identified were as follows:
1. Impact of participation in Get Digital
Summary findings on the impact on residents were shared with other members of the evaluation
team. As these findings mirrored those from the quantitative questionnaire, these data were not
grouped into sub-themes. However, examples, illustrations and quotes were identified to add
richness to the quantitative findings.
Findings on the impact of landlords were grouped into the following sub-themes:
Marketability
Relationships with residents
Views on the value of digital inclusion
Strategic planning
Realisation of ambitions
ICT capacity
Value for money
Impact on service provision
Findings on the impact on scheme staff were grouped into the following sub-themes:
Relationships with residents
Staff development
Job satisfaction
Duties
Paperwork and time
Findings on the impact on schemes were grouped into the following sub-themes:
Community links
Sociability
Tensions between residents
2. The process of providing digital literacy programmers in housing schemes
Findings on the factors that enhance or limit success of digital literacy programmers in housing
schemes were grouped into the following sub-themes:
Equipment and learning resources
Venue, location of computers and access and use
Celebrating success
Tutor
Learning programme
Key players
Paperwork
Application and funding process
Maintenance of IT skills and drop off
Community partners
Timescale of GD project
Initial engagement
Learner group
Involving potential learners from outside scheme
Use of computer between sessions
Sustainability planning
Availability of Get Digital
3. Plans for the future and issues relating to sustainability.
Findings relating to the future and sustainability were reviewed and summary findings, including
highlighting any particularly interesting or well developed models for future activity, were shared with
other members of the evaluation team, and influenced the structure of the final report. However, due
to a lack of detail (many plans for the future were not firm at the time of the research) and richness,
these data were not grouped into sub-themes, but instead were included in standalone case study
text.
Findings that fell outside of these three broad themes were shared with the rest of the evaluation
team.
The identification of these sub-themes influenced the structure of the final report. Explanatory text
on these sub-themes, as well as quotes and examples, were incorporated alongside the quantitative
findings in the final report.
Appendix 1a Learners’ Time 1 questionnaire
Get Digital Questionnaire for Residents
Introduction
Thank you for helping us with our research. By completing this questionnaire you will help us find
out if you have benefited from being involved in Get Digital and if so, how. To do this we will invite
you to answer similar questions at the end of the project, and again about four months later. By
comparing your answers from these questionnaires we can find out over time how useful you think
the project has been to you.
The questionnaire is divided into 7 sections.
1. About you
2. Your views and use of technology
3. Your health and life satisfaction
4. How you feel about yourself
5. Your friends and family
6. Your use of services
7. Being involved in the Get Digital Project
You may wonder why we are asking questions about your age, ethnicity and health, wellbeing and
your social life. This information will help us to see if any groups gain more from using technology.
We can also find out whether there is any difference between the types of benefits gained by
different groups. We are asking about your health and well-being because we would like to know if
your health has any effect on whether you are able to use a computer and to learn about using
technology. Also, we would like to find out if being involved in the project has made a difference to
the things you do.
Please be reassured that we will take care to keep information about you safely and will protect your
confidentiality. For more information about the project and the evaluation, please see the
participants’ information sheet.
The questionnaire should take you about 20 minutes to complete. If you have difficulty in
understanding the instructions or the questions, please ask your tutor to help you.
Please return your completed questionnaire to your tutor who will send it by secure post to the
research team at NIACE (The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education) in Leicester.
Thank you very much.
ID (for office use
only)
Section 1: About You
1. Name
2. Name of housing scheme
3. Email contact (if you have one)
4. Are you?
Male Female
5. Please write in the year you were born.
6. Which of the following best describes your ethnic group? Please tick one.
White Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British
Irish
Gypsy or Irish Traveller
Any other White background, please specify:
Mixed / multiple ethnic groups White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Any other Mixed / multiple ethnic groups, please
specify:
Asian / Asian British Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Chinese
Any other Asian background, please specify:
Black / African / Caribbean / Black African
British Caribbean
Any other Black / African / Caribbean
background, please specify:
Other ethnic group Arab
Any other ethnic group, please specify:
7. What is your main language?
English
Other, please specify:
8. Are you currently in paid employment?
Yes No
9. What (is) was your main occupation? Please write your main occupation, whether it was a
paid job or working as a carer or homemaker.
Section 2: Your views and use of technology
10. Do you use any of the following? Please tick all that you use.
Mobile phone
Personal alarms, pull cord alarms etc
Digital camera
Cable/satellite/digital TV
Digital radio
Games machines e.g. playstation
Cash dispensers (hole in the wall)
Computer
11. If you have ever used a computer, how confident do you feel about doing the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Very Confident Quite Not very Not at all Never
confident confident confident confident tried
Sending and
receive email
Making
phones calls
over the
Internet
Searching for
information
using the
Internet
Accessing
public services
on the Internet
Accessing
government
services /
websites
Using social
networking
sites
Using
spreadsheets
e.g. Excel
Word
processing
e.g. Word
12. If you currently use a computer, where do you use it? Please tick all that apply.
At home
Another person’s home
Communal room in the sheltered accommodation
Public library
Community/voluntary organisation
Internet cafe
Other, please specify:
If you do not currently use a computer, go to question 17.
13. Have you ever had help in using a computer from any of the following? Please tick all that
apply.
Family or friends
People at the library
People at the Internet café
People at community/voluntary organisation
Training course, including online
Work things out for myself without any help
Tutor/teacher
Other, please specify:
14. If you currently use a computer, how often do you:
Please tick one box on each line.
Several Less than Never
Once a Once a
Every day times a once a
week month
week month
Send and receive email
Make phones calls over
the Internet
Search for information
using the Internet
Access public services
on the Internet
Access government
services / websites
Use social networking
sites
Use spreadsheets e.g.
Excel
Word processing e.g.
Word
15. If you use the Internet, how often do you search for information about the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Several Less than Never
Once a Once a
Every day times a once a
week month
week month
Government services /
websites
Health or medical care
Hobbies or interests
News – local, national or
international
Local events
16. How often do you use the Internet to do the following? Please tick one box on each line.
Several Less than Never
Once a Once a
Every day times a once a
week month
week month
Listen to the radio/watch
TV
Play games
Watch films or listen to
music
Use your bank’s online
service
Find out about products
or services
Buy products or services
Sell products or services
Make travel
reservations/bookings
Compare products and
prices
Pay bills
Use government services
/ websites
Please answer the following questions even if you do not use a computer or the Internet.
17. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Internet?
Please tick one box on each line.
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
agree agree nor disagree
disagree
It makes life easier
It is a fast and efficient
way of finding information
It allows me to keep in
touch with people
It is frustrating to work with
It takes up too much time
It is expensive
It lets people find personal
information about me too
easily
Other, please specify
18. Please write any 5 words that describe how you feel about computers and the Internet.
Section 3: Your health and life satisfaction
19. Would you say your health in general is:
Please tick the word that best describes your health.
Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad
20. Do you have a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity?
By long-standing we mean anything that has troubled you over a period of time, or that is likely to
affect you over a period of time. Please tick one.
Yes No If no, please go to Q22
21. If yes, do these health problems or disabilities substantially limit your ability to carry out
normal day to day activities?
Yes No
22. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?
Please tick the answer that best describes how you feel.
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t know
nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
23. Do you have any of the following health problems or disabilities which may affect your
ability to use a computer? Please tick all that apply
Difficulty in seeing
Difficulty in hearing
Difficulty sitting
Difficulty standing
Problems with arms or hands
Problems with neck or back
Migraine or frequent headaches
Anxiety or depression
24. Thinking about different aspects of your life, how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with
the following. Please tick the words that best describe how you feel.
a. Your social life
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t know
nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
b. The way you spend your leisure time
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t know
nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
c. Your income
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t know
nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
d. Standard of living
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t know
nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Section 4: How you feel about yourself
25. Please read the following set of statements and tick the answer that best describes how
you feel.
a. In general, I feel very positive about myself.
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree
b. I generally feel that what I do in my life is valuable and worthwhile.
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree
c. When things go wrong in my life, it generally takes me a long time to get back to normal.
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree
d. At home, I feel I have control over what happens in most situations.
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree
e. I feel that what happens in life is often determined by factors beyond my control.
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree
Section 5: Friends and family
26. On average, how often do you do each of the following with family members who do not
live with you? Please tick one box on each line.
Three or Less than
Once or Once or Once or
more Every few once a
twice a twice a twice a
times a months year /
week month year
week Never
Meet up (include both
arranged and chance
meetings)
Speak on the phone
Write or email
27. On average, how often do you do each of the following with any of your friends who do
not live with you? Please tick one box on each line.
Three or Less than
Once or Once or Once or
more Every few once a
twice a twice a twice a
times a months year or
week month year
week never
Meet up (include both
arranged and chance
meetings)
Speak on the phone
Write or email
28. How frequently do you have contact with young people, other than members of your
family?
Every day Several Once a week Several times Once a Less than Never
times a a month month once
week month
29. How often do you take part in social activities? Please tick one box.
Every day Several Once a week Several times Once a Less than Never
times a a month month once
week month
30. Over the past 12 months have you done any volunteering or helped with any activities in
your area? Please tick one box.
Yes No
31. Which (if any) of the following services have you visited in the last 3 months?
please tick all that apply.
Local library
Day centre/drop-in centre
Leisure/community centre
Other, please specify:
Section 6: Your use of services
32. Which (if any) of the following services have you used in the last 3 months?
Please tick all that apply.
a. In your sheltered accommodation
Meals on wheels
Home help/home care
Community alarm
Mobile library service
Visits from health care staff e.g. nurse, GP
Help from friends and family
Social worker/care manager
b. In your locality
GP
Health visitor/district nurse
Chiropodist
Physiotherapist
Other health workers
c. How satisfied are you that you receive the support you need to live independently?
Please tick one box
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
nor dissatisfied
Section 7: Being involved in the Get Digital project
33. Do you think you might benefit from being involved in the project in any of the following
ways? Please tick all that apply.
Meeting new people
Keeping in touch with friends and family
Developing my ICT skills
Helping me to pursue my interests and hobbies
Saving me money
Helping me to find out about public services
Helping me to find out about local events
Other, please specify:
34. Please add any other comments you would like to make:
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to complete this
questionnaire. Your answers will make an important contribution to our
research.
Please put your completed questionnaire into the envelope, seal it, write your name on it and
give it to your tutor.
Appendix 1b Learners’ Time 2 questionnaire
Get Digital Questionnaire for Residents
End of learning programme
Dear Resident
A few months ago you kindly completed a questionnaire for us as part of our research. We said we
would contact you at the end of your learning programme and ask you some further questions. We
are very interested to find out if you have benefited from being involved in Get Digital and if so, how.
Several questions are exactly the same as before. It is really important that we ask them again to
help us find out over time how useful you think the project has been to you.
The questionnaire is divided into 6 sections.
8. About you and your involvement in Get Digital
9. Your views and use of technology
10. Future intentions
11. Your health and life satisfaction
12. How you feel about yourself
13. Your friends and family
Please be reassured that we will take care to keep information about you safely and will protect your
confidentiality.
The questionnaire should take you about 30 minutes to complete. If you have difficulty in
understanding the instructions or the questions, please ask your tutor to help you.
Please return your completed questionnaire to your tutor who will send it by secure post to the
research team at NIACE (The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education) in Leicester.
If you have any questions, please phone the Project Manager, Fiona Aldridge on 0116 204 4246 or
email us at GDresearch@niace.org.uk
Thank you very much. We will be in touch again later in the year.
Sara Bosley (Research Manager) and Fiona Aldridge (Project Manager)
ID (office use only)
Section 1: About you, and your involvement in Get Digital
1. Name
2. Name of housing scheme
3. Email address (if you have one)
4. Are you currently in paid employment?
Please tick one box
Yes No
5. Which of the following Get Digital modules have you completed?
Please tick all that apply
Basic Digital Skills
Keeping in Touch (Email and Skype)
Searching and Learning on the Web
Shopping and Banking on the Web
Social Networking and Blogs
Music and TV on the Web
Stay Safe Online
Writing Letters and Creating Cards
Making the Most of your Digital Pictures
Other, please specify:
Don’t know
6. How enjoyable have you found being involved in Get Digital?
Please tick one box only
I have enjoyed every session
I have enjoyed most sessions
I have enjoyed some sessions
I have enjoyed a few sessions
I have not enjoyed any of the sessions
7. What has been the main benefit to you of taking part in Get Digital?
Please write in the box.
8. Do you think any of the following changes or benefits have happened as a result of taking
part in Get Digital? Please tick all that apply.
My self-confidence has improved
I feel more confident in my ability to learn
I have met new people
It is easier to keep in touch with people
I am in contact with my family / friends more often
It is easier to access information
I have developed my knowledge of technology / skills
I am more interested in technology
I have developed my interests and hobbies
Using technology has saved me money
Using technology has saved me time
I am more aware of public services
I use public services more
I am more aware of my entitlements (e.g. pension credit, winter fuel
allowance, free TV licence, bus travel, eye tests and prescriptions)
I am more aware of local events
I am more active in local events / issues
I have more control of my life / can make more informed decisions
Other, please specify
I have not yet experienced any benefits or changes
Section 2: Your views and use of technology
9. Do you use any of the following?
Please tick all that you use.
Mobile phone
Personal alarms, pull cord alarms etc.
Digital camera
Cable / satellite / digital TV
Digital radio
Games machines e.g. play-station
Cash dispensers (hole in the wall)
10. How often do you use a computer?
Please tick one box
Every Several times Once a Once a Less than Never Don’t
a week week month once a month know
day
11. How confident do you feel about using a computer to do the following?
please tick one box on each line
Very Confident Quite Not very Not at all Never
confident confident confident confident tried
Sending and receiving
email
Making phone calls over
the Internet
Searching for information
using the Internet
Accessing public
services on the Internet
Accessing government
services / websites
Using social networking
sites
Using spreadsheets e.g.
Excel
Word processing e.g.
Word
12. Where do you use a computer?
Please tick all that apply
Home
Work (paid or unpaid)
Another person’s home
Communal room in the sheltered accommodation
Public library
Community / voluntary organisation
Internet café
Other, please specify
13. Who helps you to use a computer?
Please tick all that apply
No-one, I work things out for myself without
any help
Tutor / teacher
Family / friends
Residents at the scheme
Staff at the scheme
School / college students
Community mentors / volunteers
People at the library
People at the Internet café
People at community / voluntary organisation
Staff at work
Online training
Other, please specify
Not sure which organisation my helper
comes from
14. How often do you use a computer to do the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Every Several Less than Never
Once a Once a
times a once a
week month
day week month
Send and receive email
Make phone calls over
the Internet
Search for information
using the Internet
Access public services
on the Internet
Access government
services / websites
Use social networking
sites
Use spreadsheets e.g.
Excel
Word processing e.g.
Word
15. If you use the Internet, how often do you search for information about the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Every Several Less than
Once a Once a
times a once a Never
week month
day week month
Government services /
websites
Health or medical care
Hobbies or interests
News – local, national or
international
Local events
16. How often do you use the Internet to do the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Every Several Less than Never
Once a Once a
times a once a
week month
day week month
Listen to the radio /
watch TV
Play games
Watch films or listen to
music
Use your bank’s online
service
Find out about products
or services
Buy products or services
Sell products or services
Make travel reservations
/ bookings
Compare products and
prices
Pay bills
Use government services
/ websites
The next question asks about your views of the Internet. Please answer this question even if
you do not use the Internet.
17. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the Internet?
Please tick one box on each line.
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
agree agree nor disagree
disagree
It makes life easier
It is a fast and efficient
way of finding information
It allows me to keep in
touch with people
It is frustrating to work with
It takes up too much time
It is expensive
It lets people find personal
information about me too
easily
Other, please specify
18. Please write any 5 words that describe how you feel about computers and the Internet.
19. How has your attitude towards computers and the Internet changed as a result of taking
part in Get Digital?
Please tick one box.
My attitude towards computers and the Internet has stayed the same
I feel a lot more positive about computers and the Internet
I feel a little more positive about computers and the Internet
I feel a little more negative about computers and the Internet
I feel a lot more negative about computers and the Internet
Section 3: Future intentions
20. How likely are you to use each of the following in the future?
Please tick all that apply
a) Computer
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
b) Internet
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
21. How often do you expect to use each of the following?
Please tick all that apply
Use a computer
Every Several times Once a Once a Less than Never Don’t
a week week month once month know
day
a) Use the Internet
Every Several Once a Once a Less than Never Don’t
times a week week month once month know
day
22. What are you most likely to use a computer for?
Please tick all that apply
Send and receive email
Make phone calls over the Internet
Search for information using the Internet
Access public services on the Internet
Access government services / websites
Use social networking sites
Use spreadsheets e.g. Excel
Word processing e.g. Word
Other, please specify:
23. What would help you to continue using a computer?
Please tick all that apply.
Further training
Access to learning materials
Someone to help me practise what I have learnt
Improved access to computers / my own computer
I do not need any further help
Other, please specify:
Don’t know
24. Do you have plans to buy a computer?
Please tick one box
Yes No
25. What else, if anything, would you like to learn about technology?
Please tick all that apply
I would like to learn more about computers
I would like to learn more about the Internet
I would like to learn about different technologies
I do not want to do any more learning about technology
26. How likely are you to encourage other scheme residents to learn more about technology?
Please tick one box.
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
Section 4: Your health and life satisfaction
27. Would you say your health in general is:
Please tick the word that best describes your health
Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad
28. Have you experienced any of these benefits to your health after taking part in Get Digital?
Please tick all that apply
I know more about my health
I am better able to manage my health
I am better able to manage pain
I look after myself better (e.g. take more exercise, eat healthier food)
I take less medication
I find it easier to get about
Other, please specify
29. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?
Please tick the answer that best describes how you feel
Very Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t know
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
30. Have any of these health problems or disabilities affected your ability to use a computer?
Please tick all that apply
Difficulty in seeing
Difficulty in hearing
Difficulty sitting
Difficulty standing
Problems with arms or hands
Problems with neck or back
Migraine or frequent headaches
Anxiety or depression
31. Thinking about different aspects of your life, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the
following.
Please tick the words that best describe how you feel.
e. Your social life
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied satisfied know
f. The way you spend your leisure time
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied know
g. Your income
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied know
h. Standard of living
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied know
Section 5: How you feel about yourself
32. Please read the following set of statements and tick the answer that best describes how
you feel.
f. In general, I feel very positive about myself.
Strongly Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly
disagree
agree disagree
g. I generally feel that what I do in my life is valuable and worthwhile.
Strongly Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly
disagree
agree disagree
h. When things go wrong in my life, it generally takes me a long time to get back to normal.
Strongly Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly
disagree
agree disagree
i. At home, I feel I have control over what happens in most situations.
Strongly Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly
disagree
Agree Disagree
j. I feel that what happens in life is often determined by factors beyond my control.
Strongly Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly
disagree
agree Disagree
Section 6: Your friends and family
33. On average, how often do you do each of the following with family members who do not
live with you?
Please tick one box on each line.
Three or Once or Once or Every Once or Less than
more times twice a twice a few twice a once a year
a week week month months year / Never
Meet up (include both
arranged and chance
meetings)
Speak on the phone
Write or email
34. On average, how often do you do each of the following with any of your friends who do
not live with you?
Please tick one box on each line.
Three or Once or Once or Every Once or Less than
more times twice a twice a few twice a once a year
a week week month months year or never
Meet up (include both
arranged and chance
meetings)
Speak on the phone
Write or email
35. How frequently do you have contact with young people, other than members of your
family?
Please tick one box
Every Several Once a Several times Once a Less than Never
times a week week a month month once month
day
36. How often do you take part in social activities?
Please tick one box.
Every Several Once a Several times Once a Less than Never
times a week week a month month once month
day
37. Have you done any volunteering or helped with any activities in your area since taking
part in Get Digital?
Please tick one box.
Yes No
38. Which (if any) of the following services have you visited in the last 3 months?
Please tick all that apply
Local library
Day centre / drop-in centre
Leisure / community centre
Other, please specify:
39. Which (if any) of the following services have you used in the last 3 months?
Please tick all that apply.
d. In your sheltered accommodation
Meals on wheels
Home help / home care
Community alarm
Mobile library service
Visits from health care staff e.g. nurse, GP
Help from friends and family
Social worker / care manager
e. In your locality
GP
Health visitor / district nurse
Chiropodist
Physiotherapist
Other health workers
f. How satisfied are you that you receive the support you need to live independently?
Please tick one box.
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very
nor dissatisfied
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
40. Please add any other comments you would like to make:
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to complete this
questionnaire. Your answers will make an important contribution to our
research.
Please put your completed questionnaire into the envelope, seal it, write your
name on it and give it to your tutor.
Appendix 1c Learners’ Time 3 questionnaire
Get Digital Questionnaire for Residents
Final questionnaire
Dear Resident
A few months ago you kindly completed a questionnaire for us as part of our research. We said we
would contact you a few months after you had finished the learning programme to see how you
have been getting on. We are very interested to find out if you are still using a computer, if you feel
that you benefited from being involved in Get Digital and if so, how.
Some of the questions are exactly the same as before. It is really important that we ask them
again to help us find out over time how useful you think the project has been to you.
The questionnaire is divided into six sections.
14. About you and your involvement in Get Digital
15. Your views and use of technology
16. Future intentions
17. Your health and life satisfaction
18. How you feel about yourself
19. Your friends and family
Please be reassured that we will take care to keep information about you safely and will protect your
confidentiality.
The questionnaire should take you about 30 minutes to complete. If you have difficulty in
understanding the instructions or the questions, please ask your scheme manager to help you.
Everyone that completes the questionnaire will automatically be entered into a prize draw to
win a £100 shopping voucher.
If you would prefer to complete a paper copy of this questionnaire, please contact the Project
Coordinator, Emily Jones, by emailing GDresearch@niace.org.uk or phoning 0116 2859676.
If you have any questions, please contact Emily on 0116 285 9676 or email us at
GDresearch@niace.org.uk
Thank you very much. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to help with our research.
ID (office use only)
Section 1: About you, and your involvement in Get Digital
1. Name
2. Name of housing scheme
3. Email address (if you have
one)
4. Are you currently in paid employment?
Please tick one box.
Yes No
5. Which of the following Get Digital modules have you completed?
Please tick all that apply.
Getting Started
Keeping in Touch (Email and Skype)
Surfing the web
Safety when online
(includes safe shopping, and safe social
networking)
Greeting Cards
Digital Photos
Music and TV on the Web
Other, please specify
Don’t know
6. How enjoyable have you found being involved in Get Digital?
Please tick one box only.
I have enjoyed every session
I have enjoyed most sessions
I have enjoyed some sessions
I have enjoyed a few sessions
I have not enjoyed any of the sessions
7. How satisfied are you with the different aspects of the training you have
received from your Get Digital tutor?
Please tick one box on each line.
Neither
Very Fairly satisfied Fairly Very
satisfied satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Whether your tutor
understood your
needs
How well your tutor
explained things
Whether your tutor
provided sufficient
help
Whether your tutor
provided high
quality training
handouts/manual
Length of training
programme
Length of individual
sessions
Overall satisfaction
with training from
tutor
Please add any comments:
8. How satisfied are you with the support and help you have received to
continue learning after the tutor finished working at the scheme?
Please tick one box.
Neither satisfied
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
nor dissatisfied
Please add any comments:
9. What has been the main benefit to you of taking part in Get Digital?
Please write in the box.
10. How did Get Digital help you gain this benefit?
Please write in the box.
11. Have any of the following changes or benefits happened as a result of
taking part in Get Digital? Please tick all that apply.
My self-confidence has improved
I feel more confident in my ability to learn
I have met new people
It is easier to keep in touch with people
I am in contact with my family/friends more often
It is easier to access information
I have developed my knowledge of technology skills
I am more interested in technology
I have developed my interests and hobbies
Using technology has saved me money
Using technology has saved me time
I am more aware of public services
I use public services more
I am more aware of my entitlements (e.g. pension credit, winter fuel
allowance, free TV licence, bus travel, eye tests and prescriptions)
I am more aware of local events
I am more active in local events / issues
I have more control of my life / can make more informed decisions
I have bought my own computer
Other, please specify
I have not yet experienced any benefits or changes
12. What, if any, negative effects has participating in Get Digital had on you?
E.g. health, relationships, etc.
Please write in the box.
Section 2: Your views and use of technology
13. Do you use any of the following?
Please tick all that you use.
Mobile phone
Personal alarms, pull cord alarms etc.
Digital camera
Cable/satellite/digital TV
Digital radio
Games machines e.g. play-station
Cash dispensers (hole in the wall)
14. How often do you use a computer?
Please tick one box.
Every Several Once a Once a Less than Never Don’t
times a week month once a know
day
week month
15. How confident do you feel about using a computer to do the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Very Confident Quite Not very Not at all Never
confident confident confident confident tried
Sending and receiving
email
Making phone calls over
the Internet
Searching for information
using the Internet
Accessing public
services on the Internet
Accessing government
services/websites
Using social networking
sites
Using spreadsheets e.g.
Excel
Word processing e.g.
Word
16. Where do you use a computer?
Please tick all that apply.
Home
Work (paid or unpaid)
Another person’s home
Communal room in the sheltered accommodation
Public library
Community/voluntary organisation
Internet café
Other, please specify
17. Who helps you to use a computer?
Please tick all that apply.
No-one, I work things out for myself without
any help
Tutor/teacher
Family/friends
Residents at the scheme
Staff at the scheme
School/college students
Community mentors/volunteers
People at the library
People at the Internet café
People at community/,voluntary organisation
Staff at work
Online training
Other, please specify
Not sure which organisation my helper
comes from
18. How often do you use a computer to do the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Every Several Less than Never
Once a Once a
times a once a
week month
day week month
Send and receive email
Make phone calls over
the Internet
Search for information
using the Internet
Access public services
on the Internet
Access government
services/websites
Use social networking
sites
Use spreadsheets e.g.
Excel
Word processing e.g.
Word
19. If you use the Internet, how often do you search for information about the
following? Please tick one box on each line.
Every Several Less than
Once a Once a
times a once a Never
week month
day week month
Government
services/websites
Health or medical care
Hobbies or interests
News – local, national or
international
Local events
20. How often do you use the Internet to do the following?
Please tick one box on each line.
Every Several Less than Never
Once a Once a
times a once a
week month
day week month
Listen to the radio/watch
TV
Play games
Watch films or listen to
music
Use your bank’s online
service
Find out about products
or services
Buy products or services
Sell products or services
Make travel
reservations/bookings
Compare products and
prices
Pay bills
Use government services
/websites
The next question asks about your views of the Internet. Please answer this
question even if you do not use the Internet.
21. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
the Internet? Please tick one box on each line.
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
agree agree nor disagree
disagree
It makes life easier
It is a fast and
efficient way of
finding information
It allows me to keep
in touch with people
It is frustrating to
work with
It takes up too much
time
It is expensive
It lets people find
personal information
about me too easily
Other, please
specify
22. Please write any 5 words that describe how you feel about computers
and the Internet.
23. How has your attitude towards computers and the Internet changed as a
result of taking part in Get Digital?
Please tick one box.
My attitude towards computers and the Internet has stayed the same
I feel a lot more positive about computers and the Internet
I feel a little more positive about computers and the Internet
I feel a little more negative about computers and the Internet
I feel a lot more negative about computers and the Internet
Section 3: Future intentions
24. How likely are you to use each of the following in the future?
Please tick all that apply.
c) Computer
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
d) Internet
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
25. How often do you expect to use each of the following?
Please tick all that apply
Use a computer
Every Several Once a Once a Less than Never Don’t
times a week month once know
day
week month
b) Use the Internet
Every Several Once a Once a Less than Never Don’t
times a week month once know
day
week month
26. What are you most likely to use a computer for?
Please tick all that apply
Send and receive email
Make phone calls over the Internet
Search for information using the Internet
Access public services on the Internet
Access government services/websites
Use social networking sites
Use spreadsheets e.g. Excel
Word processing e.g. Word
Other, please specify:
27. What would help you to continue using a computer?
Please tick all that apply.
Further training
Access to learning materials
Someone to help me practise what I have learnt
Improved access to computers/my own computer
I do not need any further help
Other, please specify:
Don’t know
28. Do you have plans to buy a computer?
Please tick one box.
Yes No
29. What else, if anything, would you like to learn about technology?
Please tick all that apply.
I would like to learn more about computers
I would like to learn more about the Internet
I would like to learn about different technologies
I do not want to do any more learning about technology
30. How likely are you to encourage other scheme residents to learn more
about technology?
Please tick one box.
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
Section 4: Your health and life satisfaction
31. Would you say your health in general is:
Please tick the word that best describes your health.
Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad
31. Have you experienced any of these benefits to your health after taking
part in Get Digital?
Please tick all that apply
I know more about my health
I am better able to manage my health
I am better able to manage pain
I look after myself better (e.g. take more exercise, eat healthier food)
I take less medication
I find it easier to get about
Other, please specify
32. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole
nowadays?
Please tick the answer that best describes how you feel
Very Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t know
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
33. Have any of these health problems or disabilities affected your ability to
use a computer?
Please tick all that apply
Difficulty in seeing
Difficulty in hearing
Difficulty sitting
Difficulty standing
Problems with arms or hands
Problems with neck or back
Migraine or frequent headaches
Anxiety or depression
34. Thinking about different aspects of your life, how satisfied or
dissatisfied are you with the following.
Please tick the words that best describe how you feel.
i. Your social life
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied satisfied know
j. The way you spend your leisure time
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied know
k. Your income
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied know
l. Standard of living
Very Fairly Neither satisfied Fairly Very Don’t
satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
satisfied know
Section 5: How you feel about yourself
35. Please read the following set of statements and tick the answer that
best describes how you feel.
k. In general, I feel very positive about myself.
Strongly
Neither agree
Strongly Disagree
nor disagree
Agree disagree
agree
l. I generally feel that what I do in my life is valuable and worthwhile.
Strongly
Neither agree
Strongly Disagree
nor disagree
Agree disagree
agree
m. When things go wrong in my life, it generally takes me a long time to get
back to normal.
Strongly
Neither agree
Strongly Disagree
nor disagree
Agree disagree
agree
n. At home, I feel I have control over what happens in most situations.
Strongly
Neither agree
Strongly Disagree
nor disagree
Agree disagree
agree
o. I feel that what happens in life is often determined by factors beyond my
control.
Strongly
Neither agree
Strongly Disagree
nor disagree
Agree disagree
agree
Section 6: Your friends and family
36. On average, how often do you do each of the following with family
members who do not live with you?
Please tick one box on each line.
Three or Once or Once or Every Once or Less than
more times twice a twice a few twice a once a yea
a week week month months year / Never
Meet up (include both
arranged and chance
meetings)
Speak on the phone
Write or email
37. On average, how often do you do each of the following with any of your
friends who do not live with you?
Please tick one box on each line.
Three or Once or Once or Every Once or Less than
more times twice a twice a few twice a once a yea
a week week month months year or never
Meet up (include both
arranged and chance
meetings)
Speak on the phone
Write or email
38. How frequently do you have contact with young people, other than
members of your family?
Please tick one box
Every Several Once a Several Once a Less than Never
times a week times a month once
day
week month month
39. How often do you take part in social activities?
Please tick one box.
Every Several Once a Several Once a Less than Never
times a week times a month once
day
week month month
40. Have you done any volunteering or helped with any activities in your area
since taking part in Get Digital?
Please tick one box.
Yes No
41. Which (if any) of the following services have you visited in the last 3
months?
Please tick all that apply.
Local library
Day centre/drop-in centre
Leisure/community centre
Other, please specify:
42. Which (if any) of the following services have you used in the last 3
months?
Please tick all that apply.
g. In your sheltered accommodation
Meals on wheels
Home help/home care
Community alarm
Mobile library service
Visits from health care staff e.g. nurse, GP
Help from family and friends
Social worker/care manager
h. In your locality
GP
Health visitor / district nurse
Chiropodist
Physiotherapist
Other health workers
i. How satisfied are you that you receive the support you need to live
independently?
Please tick one box.
Very Fairly Neither Fairly Very
satisfied nor
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
43. Please add any other comments you would like to make:
Would you be happy for us to contact you again in a few months to see how
you are getting on?
Yes No
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to complete
this questionnaire. Your answers will make an important
contribution to our research. We will send you a brief copy of our
findings.
Appendix 1d Scheme contacts’ Time 1 questionnaire
Get Digital Questionnaire
for scheme contact
Thank you for agreeing to complete our questionnaire. By doing so you will help us
to understand how the Get Digital project has worked and the benefits you and
others have gained from being involved.
We are inviting you to complete this questionnaire and another at the end of the
project and one more about four months later. Comparing your answers at these
different stages will help us understand how Get Digital has affected you, the
scheme and the residents who live in the scheme.
The questionnaire is divided into four sections:
1. About you and the scheme
2. About the ICT equipment and facilities
3. Users and usage of ICT
4. The benefits you hope to gain from being involved in Get Digital
The questionnaire should take you about 20 minutes to complete. Please make sure
that you have read the participant information sheet before you complete the
questionnaire.
For more information about the project and the evaluation, please see the scheme
contact’s information sheet or speak to your Digital Unite Tutor.
Please send your completed questionnaire by post to: Emily Jones, Research Team,
NIACE, 20 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP or by email to:
GDresearch@niace.org.uk
Thank you.
Section 1: About you and your scheme
ID (for
office use
only)
Please enter the following details.
Name
Email contact
Phone contact
Name of scheme
Total number of staff at the
scheme
Total number of residents
Number of male residents
Number of female residents
1. Which (if any) of the following organisations provide regular support or
services to the scheme or to your residents? Please tick all that apply and
give a brief description of their role and the nature of any arrangements the
scheme has with these organisations.
Other organisations Brief description of role and arrangements
Community Learning Champions
Community organisations e.g.
Women’s Institute, Citizens’ Advice
Community Voices Digital Mentors
Libraries
Local authority
Local businesses e.g. through
volunteering arrangements, gifting of
equipment
Primary Care Trust
Schools/colleges
Social care services
UK online
Voluntary organisations e.g. Age
Concern/Age UK
Other, please specify:
Section 2: ICT facilities and equipment
2. Approximately how many residents have a computer in their home? Please
enter number or tick ‘don’t know’.
Don’t know
What ICT equipment is there in the schemes’ offices? Please tick to indicate
which equipment you have and write in the number of each type of equipment you
have.
ICT equipment Number (please write in)
Computers
Printers
Other, please specify
3a. Do you currently have internet access at the scheme? Please tick all that
apply.
In the schemes offices
In the communal areas
Available for all residents
We do not have internet
access
If you do not have internet access, please go to Q.4
3b. If you do have Internet access, please indicate the type of internet access
you have at the scheme. Please tick all that apply.
Dial up
Broadband
Wireless
Don’t know
3. What ICT equipment is there in the communal areas of the scheme?
Please tick all that apply and tell us how many of each type of equipment you
have.
ICT equipment Number (please write in)
Computers
Printers
Equipment/software to improve accessibility
Other ICT equipment (e.g. game consoles),
please specify:
Section 3: Users and usage of ICT
4. Who uses the communal ICT facilities? Please tick all that apply.
Manager
Staff
Residents
Residents’ friends/family members
Volunteers from other organisations.
Service providers from other organisations e.g. healthcare workers, citizens
advice staff, library staff. Please specify:
Other, please specify:
5. How confident do you feel about doing the following? Please tick one
answer on each line
Very Confident Quite Not very Not at all Never
confident confident confident confident tried
Sending and
receive email
Making
phones calls
over the
Internet
Searching for
information
using the
Internet
Accessing
public services
on the Internet
Accessing
government
services /
websites
Using social
networking
sites
Using
spreadsheets
e.g. Excel
Word
processing
e.g. Word
Participating in
online
meetings /
conferences
Creating web
pages
Accessing
residents’
documents
6. As far as you are aware, can any other staff who work at this scheme use
any of the following? Please tick all that apply.
Sending and receive email
Making phones calls over the Internet
Searching for information using the Internet
Accessing public services on the Internet
Accessing government services / websites
Using social networking sites
Using spreadsheets e.g. Excel
Word processing e.g. Word
Participating in online meetings / conferences
Creating web pages
Accessing residents’ documents
We do not have any other staff working at this scheme
Section 4: Benefits of participating in Get Digital
7. What benefits do you think you personally will gain by being involved in
this project?
8. What benefits do you think the scheme will gain by being involved in this
project?
9. What do you think are the potential benefits of enabling residents to
access and use ICT?
10. Please add any other comments about participating in Get Digital.
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to complete
this questionnaire. Your answers will make an important
contribution to our research.
Please return your completed questionnaire Emily Jones, Research
Team, NIACE, 20 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP or by
email to: GDresearch@niace.org.uk
Appendix 1f Scheme contacts’ Time 3 questionnaire
Get Digital Final Questionnaire for Scheme Contact
Thank you for helping us with our research. By doing so you will help us to
understand how the Get Digital project has worked, and the benefits that you and
others have gained from being involved.
This is the final questionnaire we are sending to your scheme. Comparing your
answers at these different stages will help us to understand how Get Digital has
affected you, the scheme, and the residents.
The questionnaire is divided into five sections:
A. You and your scheme
B. Resident involvement
C. Training and support
D. Taking the project forward
E. Benefits and impact of participating in the project
The questionnaire should take you about 20 minutes to complete.
If you would prefer to complete a paper copy of the questionnaire, please contact the
Project Coordinator, Emily Jones, on 0116 285 9676 or email us at
GDresearch@niace.org.uk
If you would like to know more about the evaluation, please contact Emily on 0116
285 9676 or email us at GDresearch@niace.org.uk
Thank you
Section A: You and your scheme ID (office use only)
Your name
Name of your scheme
Your contact telephone: Your contact email:
1. Was the level of grant adequate?
Too high Just right Too low
Please explain your answer.
2. Was it useful to receive grant funding in two tranches?
Yes No
Please explain your answer.
3. On reflection, did you spend your money in the most useful way?
Yes No
Please explain your answer.
Section B: Resident involvement
4. How were residents involved, if at all, in deciding what to learn in the
expert supervision sessions?
Please tick the statement that best describes their involvement.
The expert sessions were completely designed around residents’
expressed interests and needs
A pre-designed programme of expert sessions was adapted to meet
residents’ expressed interests
A pre-determined programme of expert sessions was approved, in its
entirety by residents, and there was no need for adaptation
Residents were not involved
5. How were residents involved in deciding how the second part of the
grant would be spent?
Please tick the statement that best describes their involvement.
Residents decided how the money would be spent
Residents made suggestions about how the money would be spent
Residents, staff and managers decided together how the money
would be spent
Residents were not involved in how the money would be spent
6. How were residents involved in planning future ICT provision and
training at your scheme?
Please tick the statement that best describes their involvement.
Residents planned future ICT provision and training
Residents made suggestions about future ICT provision and training
Residents, staff and managers decided together future ICT provision
and training
Residents were not involved in future ICT provision and training
Section C: Training and support
7. What training and support did Digital Unite provide as part of this
project?
Please tick all that apply.
Be prepared (planning session)
Get set up, get enthused (setting up equipment and involving residents)
Get learning (learning programme for residents)
Planning the future (session 1)
Planning the future (session 2)
Expert supervision sessions (up to 10)
8. How satisfied are you that the training delivered by Digital Unite met
your needs and those of any other staff?
Please tick one box on each line.
Very Fairly Neither Fairly Very N/A
satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Satisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
Be Prepared
(planning
session)
Get set up,
get enthused
(setting up
equipment
and involving
residents)
Get Learning
(learning
programme)
Planning the
future,
session 1
Planning the
future,
session 2
Expert
supervision
sessions
9. How many expert supervision sessions did your tutor deliver at this
scheme?
10. How satisfied are you that the expert supervision sessions provided by
Digital Unite met the needs of
Very Fairly Neither Fairly Very N/A
satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
Satisfied Satisfied nor
dissatisfied
a)
Residents?
b) You and
any other
staff?
11. How effective were the expert supervision sessions in:
Very Fairly Neither Fairly Not at all N/A
effective effectiv effective ineffective effective
e nor
ineffective
a. Improving your ICT
skills
b. Improving
residents’ ICT skills
c. Helping to sustain
the project
12. Which (if any) of the following organisations provided support with
learning about computers and the Internet as part of this project?
Please tick all that apply. Then give a brief description of their role and the nature
of any arrangements the scheme has with these organisations.
Brief description of role and arrangements
Community Learning Champions
Community organisations e.g.
Women’s Institute, Citizens’
Advice
Community Voices Digital
Mentors
Libraries
Local authority
Local businesses e.g. through
volunteering arrangements,
gifting of equipment
Primary Care Trust
Schools / colleges
Social care services
UK online
Voluntary organisations e.g. Age
Concern / Age UK
Other, please specify:
Section D: Taking the project forward
13. Which, if any, of the following will continue to provide support with
learning about computers and the Internet?
Please tick all that apply. Then give a brief description of their role and the nature
of any arrangements the scheme has to continue working with these
organisations.
Brief description of their expected role
Community Learning Champions
Community organisations e.g.
Women’s Institute, Citizens’
Advice
Voluntary organisations e.g. Age
Concern / Age UK
Community Voices Digital
Mentors
Library staff
Local authority staff
Local businesses e.g. through
volunteering arrangements,
gifting of equipment
School / college students
Scheme staff
Peer mentors
UK online
Digital Unite tutor
Central landlord staff
Other, please specify:
14. What arrangements do you have in place to maintain the computer
equipment?
No arrangements
Internal support
Contractual arrangements
Other ad hoc support
15. How will the continuing work of Get Digital be funded?
Fund raising
Residents’ contributions
Landlord operating budget
Local authority
Primary Care Trust
Applying for other grants
Other
16. Approximately how many residents use the communal computers on a
weekly basis?
17. How has residents use of the communal computers changed since the
end of the Get Digital programme? Please tick all that apply.
Residents use the computers about the
same amount
Residents use the computers more
frequently
Residents use the computer less
frequently
More residents use the computers
Few residents use the computers
18. Are you aware of any residents who have bought their own computer as
a result of participating in Get Digital?
Yes No
If so, how many do you estimate?
Section E: Benefits and impact of participating in the project
19. Who currently uses the communal computers?
Please tick all that apply. Then give a brief description what they have used the
ICT facilities for.
Please briefly describe what they
have used the ICT facilities for
Residents
Staff
Manager
Residents’ friends / family members
Volunteers from other organisations
Members of the local community
Service providers from other
organisations e.g. healthcare workers,
citizens advice staff, library staff.
Please specify:
Other people. Please specify
20. Since being involved in Get Digital do you...
More About the Less Don’t
often same often do this
… send and receive email
… make phone calls over the Internet
… search for information using the Internet
… access public services on the Internet
… access government services / websites
… use social networking sites
… use spreadsheets e.g. Excel
… use word processing e.g. Word
… participate in online meetings / conferences
… create web pages
… access residents’ documents
21. How confident are you in using the following?
Please tick one answer on each line.
Very Confident Quite Not very Not at all Never
confident confident confident confident tried
Sending and
receiving email
Making phone
calls over the
Internet
Searching for
information using
the Internet
Accessing public
services on the
Internet
Accessing
government
services/websites
Using social
networking sites
Using
spreadsheets
e.g. Excel
Using word
processing e.g.
Word
Participating in
online meetings/
conferences
Creating web
pages
Accessing
residents’
documents
23. Has your confidence in using computers changed since the scheme
became involved in Get Digital? Follow by list of options?
Increased a Decreased a Decreased a
Increased a lot No change
little little lot
24. Has participation in Get Digital had a positive impact on any the following?
Please tick all that apply.
Communication between scheme staff
and landlord
Communication between scheme staff
and other schemes
Communication between residents and
the landlord
Communication between staff and
residents
Involvement with the local community
Residents’ contact with young people
25. Has participation in Get Digital improved any of the following for
residents?
Please tick all that apply.
Social interaction between residents
Residents’ emotional well being
Residents’ confidence
Residents’ physical health
Residents’ ability to manage their health
Residents’ computer skills
Residents’ independence
Residents’ relationships with family and
friends
Other, please specify
26. Has participation in Get Digital improved any of the following for the
scheme?
Please tick all that apply.
Your job satisfaction
The job satisfaction of other staff
Your views of the value of providing
computer access and training sheltered
accommodation
Efficiency savings
Other, please specify
27. If there have been benefits, what do you think has been most effective in
achieving these benefits?
Content of the initial learning programme
Quality and skills of the tutor
Involvement of community partners
Peer support
Grant
Toolkits
Website
28. Have there been any negative effects of Get Digital? If so, please describe.
29. What do you think might have been done to prevent these negative
effects?
30. Please add any further comments about participating in the Get Digital
programme.
THANK YOU very much for taking the time and trouble to complete this
questionnaire. Your answers will make an important contribution to our
research. We will send you a brief summary of findings.
Appendix 1g: Tutors’ online questionnaire
Contact Information
Thank you for verifying the below information.
*First Name:
*Last Name:
*Email Address:
Contact phone number:
All fields with an asterisk (*) are required.
*1. You may have worked at more than one sheltered housing scheme as part of Get
Digital. Please give the name of the scheme that this response refers to: (*Required)
*2. Is this the first time you have completed this questionnaire? (*Required)
Select one.
Yes, this is the first time I have completed (Go to question number 0.)
this questionnaire
No, I have already completed this (Go to question number 0.)
questionnaire in reference to another
scheme
Training and support from Digital Unite
*3. Which of the following training sessions did you attend? Please select all that
apply. (*Required)
Select all that apply.
I did not attend any training
One day briefing (Answer question number 3.3.)
Webinar (1) (Answer question number 3.3.)
Webinar (2) (Answer question number 3.3.)
Other, please describe:
*3.1 How satisfied were you with the one day briefing? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*3.2 How satisfied were you with Webinar (1)? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*3.3 How satisfied were you with Webinar (2)? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
4. What, if any, additional training would you have liked to receive? Why would you
have found this additional training helpful?
*5. What support, if any, did you receive from Digital Unite? (*Required)
Select all that apply.
I did not receive any support
Guidance documents on Learning (Answer question number 5.5.)
Programme
Learning resources for residents (Answer question number 5.5.)
Email contact (Answer question number 5.5.)
Telephone contact (Answer question number 5.5.)
Site visits (Answer question number 5.5.)
Access to tutor only area on website (Answer question number 5.5.)
Bulletin board for cross-tutor communication (Answer question number 5.5.)
Topic workshops (Answer question number 5.5.)
Other, please describe:
*5.1 How satisfied were you with the guidance documents on the Learning
Programme? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*5.2 How satisfied were you with the learning resources for residents? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*5.3 How satisfied were you with the support you received via email? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*5.4 How satisfied were you with the support you received via telephone? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*5.5 How satisfied were you with the support you received through site visits?
(*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*5.6 How satisfied were you with the tutor only area on the website? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*5.7 How satisfied were you the bulletin board for cross-tutor communication?
(*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*5.8 How satisfied were you with the topic workshops? (*Required)
Select one.
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
6. Please add any comments you have about the support:
7. What, if any, additional support would you have liked to receive? Why would you
have found this additional support helpful?
Success factors and improvements
*8. Based on your experience, how successful do you think Get Digital has been at
this scheme? (*Required)
Select one.
Very successful
Fairly successful
Neither successful nor unsuccessful
Fairly unsuccessful
Very unsuccessful
*9. What factors enabled the successes at this scheme?
Please tick all that apply and briefly explain your answers below. (*Required)
Select all that apply.
Involving community partners
Involving young people
Involving residents in planning onsite delivery
Enthusiasm of residents
Commitment of the scheme manager
Commitment from landlord organisation
Scheme staff's ICT skills
Scheme staff's support of residents' learning
Grant to purchase equipment/internet access
Tailored learning programmes to meet residents' needs
Tutoring in pairs/small groups
Including social events in the programme
Quality of learning resources for residents
This scheme was not successful
Other, please specify:
10. Please briefly explain your answers.
*11. How might Get Digital be improved?
Please tick all that apply and briefly explain your answers below. (*Required)
Select all that apply.
Faster processing of invoices
Earlier purchase of equipment
More involvement of community partners
More involvement of young people
More resident involvement in planning
Greater resident commitment
More involvement of scheme staff
Scheme staff with better ICT skills
More landlord support
Larger grant
More technical support
Learning programmes more closely tailored to residents' needs
Better learning resources for residents
One to one training
None of these
Other, please specify:
12. Please briefly explain your answers.
13. Please add any further comments you have about the Get Digital Programme
Appendix 1h: Wave 3 online questionnaire
Get Digital survey
Get Digital was a project set up to provide residents of sheltered accommodation
with access to technology and training to help them learn how to use it. The Get
Digital website (www.getdigital.org.uk) was set up to share learning resources with
sheltered housing schemes.
NIACE is carrying out an evaluation of Get Digital. The evaluation will help us to
understand what has worked and why, and to identify the benefits for residents and
staff at sheltered housing schemes and members of the community.
As part of the evaluation, you are invited to take part in a short online survey. This
online survey is about the Get Digital website and any resources you have access or
used on the website. Your experiences and views will make an important
contribution to our research.
The survey has designed to be user-friendly and should take no longer than 10
minutes to complete.
The survey will close on 24 July 2011.
All responses are anonymous and it will not be possible to identify you or your
organisation.
If you have any queries about the evaluation, please contact Emily Jones
(GDresearch@niace.org.uk, 0116 2859676).
About you and your organisation
In what capacity are you responding to this survey? Please select one.
Landlord of sheltered housing scheme(s)
Manager of a sheltered housing scheme
A member of staff at a sheltered housing scheme
An individual or organisation that works in partnership with a sheltered housing
scheme
A resident at a sheltered housing scheme (if resident, they skip to Get Digital
website)
Other please specify
1.1 If Landlord or manager of a scheme: What type of organisation is the Landlord?
Please select one.
RSL (Registered Social Landlord)
LA (Local Authority)
ALMO (Arms Length Management Organisation)
Other, please describe
1.2 If Landlord or manager of a scheme: In what region is your organisation based
in? Please select all that apply.
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
2. If Landlord: Did any of your schemes receive funding as part of the Get Digital
programme?
Yes/No/Don’t know
2. 2 If scheme manager/scheme staff: Did your scheme receive funding as part of
the Get Digital programme?
Yes/No/Don’t know
2.3 If partnership org: Did you work in partnership with a scheme that received
funding as part of the Get Digital programme?
Yes/No/Don’t know
Get Digital website
3. How would you rate the presentation of the Get Digital website?
Very good
Good
Satisfactory
Poor
Very poor
3.1 If poor/very poor: How could it be better? (Open box)
4. How easy or difficult is it to find the information or resources you need from the
Get Digital website?
Very easy
Fairly easy
Fairly difficult
Very difficult
4.1 If fairly/very difficult: How could it be better? (Open box)
5. Overall, how easy or difficult do you find it to use the Get Digital website?
Very easy
Fairly easy
Fairly difficult
Very difficult
5.1 If fairly/very difficult: How could it be better? (Open box)
Get Digital resources
6. Which of the following resources have you accessed? Please select each one that
you have downloaded.
Get Digital Toolkit 1: Getting Started
Get Digital Toolkit 2: Keeping Safe
Get Digital Toolkit 3: Access for All
Get Digital Toolkit 4: Get Learning
Get Digital Toolkit 5: Involving the Community
Get Digital Toolkit 6: Keep Going
6. 1For each toolkit selected: In your opinion, how useful is the Get Digital Toolkit?
Very useful
Quite useful
Not very useful
Not at all useful
7. Overall, how satisfied are you with the range of resources available on the Get
Digital website?
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
8. Would you recommend the website and resources to others?
Yes/No
(If a resident is responding, they will be directed to Question 13)
9. How have you or your sheltered housing scheme(s) used the resources you have
accessed? Please select all that apply.
To deliver learning to residents
To deliver training to staff
To involve other individuals or organisations, e.g. libraries, volunteers,
schools, charities
To improve access to computers and the internet for residents
To improve access to computers and the internet for staff
To ensure digital learning continues in the future
The resources are yet to be used
9.1 Please describe any other ways in which you have used the resources:
(open box)
Future action
10. And thinking of the future, how do you or your sheltered housing scheme(s) plan
to use the resources you have accessed from the Get Digital website? Please select
all that apply.
To deliver learning to residents
To deliver training to staff
To involve other individuals or organisations, e.g. libraries, volunteers,
schools, charities
To improve access to computers and the internet for residents
To improve access to computers and the internet for staff
To ensure digital learning continues in the future
There are no plans to use the resources
10.1 Please describe any other ways in which you plan to use the resources:
(open box)
(All respondents except landlords will be directed to Question 13)
Supporting sheltered housing schemes
(Questions for Landlords only)
11. Have you already supported sheltered housing schemes to use the resources to
enhance their digital literacy provision?
Yes/No/Don’t know
11.1 If yes: How many schemes have you already supported to do this? (Open box)
12. Are you planning to support other sheltered housing schemes to use the
resources to enhance their digital literacy provision?
Yes/No/Don’t know
12.1 If yes: How many schemes are you planning to support to do this? (Open box)
Additional comments
13. If you have any other comments about the Get Digital website, please write
below:
(open box)
Final page
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your
answers will make an important contribution to our research.
If you have any queries about the evaluation, please contact Emily Jones
(GDresearch@niace.org.uk, 0116 2859676).
Appendix 1i: Learners’ Time 1 focus group
Get Digital Evaluation Project
Residents’ focus group
Guidelines for NIACE focus group facilitators
Focus group topic guide
1. What type of technology have you used?
Note: This includes personal alarms, digital TVs/radios, mobile phones, cash
dispensers and games machines as well as computers and the Internet.
Prompts:
Has anyone tried using any of technology and decided not to continue using it?
If so, why did you decide not to continue?
Has anyone here avoided using technology? What were your reasons for avoiding
using it?
2. What were your reasons for deciding to use these different types of
technology?
Note: Distinguish between reasons for using different types of technologies.
Reasons may include: necessity, pleasure, general interest, to make life easier, to
keep in touch with friend/family, to keep up with grandchildren, to find information, to
learn something new, feeling you should.
3. What do you think about these different types of technology?
Prompts:
What do you think about computers?
What do you think about the Internet?
What do you think about other sorts of technology?
4. How do you think you can benefit from using the kind of technology we
have been discussing?
Prompts:
How might they help you?
How do you think you can benefit from using a computer?
How do you think you can benefit from using the Internet?
How do you think you can benefit from using other sorts of technology?
eg keeping in touch with friends/family; buying things at low cost/more easily; saving
time; doing things with other people; learning something new
5. What concerns, if any, do you have about using technology?
Prompts
What concerns, if any, do you have about using a computer?
What concerns, if any, do you have about using the Internet?
eg safety/security of information about them; being able to understand and use ICT.
6. What other technology would you like to use, or would you like to use
more?
Prompts:
How do you think you might benefit from using this?
What difference would this make for you?
What is preventing you from using this (more)?
7. How do you think being involved in Get Digital will help you?
Prompts:
How might it help you eg
Keep in touch with people
Manage your money
Manage your health
Meet new people
Find out about activities and events
Find information?
Part 3 Summary and close
Ask if anyone has anything else to say.
Explain what happens next –ie they will be invited to complete a questionnaire at the
end of the Get Learning sessions and again about 4 months later. They will also be
invited to come to another group discussion to tell us about their views and experiences
of the learning and support they have received.
Thank everyone for coming and contributing to the group discussion.
Appendix 1j: Learners’ Time 2 focus group
Get Digital Evaluation
Residents’ focus group topic guide
End of programme
Introduction
We would like to ask you some questions about your views and experiences of
taking part in Get Digital. We are interested in finding out about:
what you thought about taking part in Get Digital
what was helpful and what could have been better about the programme
how (if at all) you benefited from taking part in Get Digital; and
what you plan to do as a result of taking part in Get Digital.
The focus group discussion will take about one hour and will involve other residents
who were involved in the learning programme. You might like to think about your
answers before we meet, but you don’t have to do anything to prepare.
Section One: Taking part in Get Digital
1. Please can you start by telling us about what you learnt on the Get Digital
programme?
2. What were the best things about taking part in Get Digital?
3. What could have been better?
4. What - if anything – did you find difficult?
Section Two: Benefits and impact
1. Has being involved in Get Digital changed what you think about computers
and the internet?
2. How (if at all) taking part in Get Digital changed:
the way you use computers and the internet?
what you do in your daily life?
how you see yourself?
3. Has taking part in Get Digital made a difference to you financially?
4. What, if any, other impact has Get Digital had on you and your life?
5. What do you think contributed most to these changes?
6. Overall, what have been the main benefits for you of participating in Get
Digital?
Section Three: What you plan to do next
7. How have staff talked about plans to continue learning about using
computers?
8. How do you plan to use computers and the internet in the future?
9. Are there any other things that you would like to say about Get Digital?
Thank you very much for agreeing to take part in a focus group discussion
about taking in Get Digital. Your comments will be included in our report to the
Government, without linking anything to you individually.
Appendix 1k: Scheme contact interview
Get Digital Evaluation
Scheme contacts/managers Interview topic guide
Introduction
We are inviting you to be interviewed so that we can collect some background
information for our case study reports and find out about your views and experiences
of participating in Get Digital. We are interested what worked, what did not work, the
role of staff and community partners’ roles, and the benefits and impact of
participation.
Please read the consent form we sent to you before you are interviewed and are
ready to give your consent over the phone at the beginning of the interview.
The interview will take about 30 minutes. We are sending you the questions in
advance so that you can give some thought to your answers and gather any
information you might need to answer our questions.
Section One: The programme
Making decisions
1. How were technology and equipment requirements for participating in Get
Digital assessed at this scheme?
2. How were residents’ training and support requirements assessed?
3. How were the staff’s learning requirements in terms of their computer skills
assessed?
Section Two: Staff and partners
Staff roles in Get Digital
1. What role did you personally play in Get Digital?
2. How, if at all, were you able to support residents in their learning?
3. How, if at all, were other staff involved?
4. What support did you and other staff receive to enable you help residents
develop their computer skills?
5. Approximately how much time (in hours) did staff spend on Get Digital?
Partners
6. Who were your partners in Get Digital?
7. How did you select these partners?
8. How did you secure the participation of partners?
9. What role did the different partners play?
10. How did you maintain their interest?
11. How successful was the partnership?
Section Three: Benefits and impact
12. How have you personally benefited from being involved in Get Digital?
13. What impact has involvement in Get Digital had on you?
14. What, if any, negative effects have you experienced?
15. How, if at all, have your views about the value of providing computers and
digital literacy programmes in sheltered accommodation changed during the
course of this project?
16. How, if at all, have other staff benefited from Get Digital?
17. What, if any, negative effects have staff experienced through being involved in
Get Digital?
18. In your opinion, what impact has Get Digital had on residents?
19. What impact has the project had on the scheme?
20. What long term benefits do think will be gained from involvement in Get
Digital?
21. In your opinion what contributed most to the positive outcomes at this
scheme?
Section four: The process
22. Overall, what do you think went well?
23. What do you think could have been done better?
24. What challenges did you face?
25. How did you overcome these?
26. Comparing the benefits with the challenges how would you assess this project
in terms of value for money?
Section five: Sustainability
27. How do you plan to build on your experience of involvement in this
programme?
28. What do you see as barriers to sustaining the project?
29. How might you overcome these?
Section Six: Advice for other scheme managers and close of interview
30. What would you say to other scheme managers who are thinking of getting
involved in digital literacy programmes?
31. Is there anything else you would like to say about Get Digital and your
participation in the project?
Thank you for participating in this interview. We will be sending you a final
questionnaire in the next few weeks. We will use your responses to the
questionnaires and our interview questions will be included in our report to the
government, without linking them to you individually.
Appendix 1l: Landlord interview
Get Digital Evaluation
Landlords’ interview topic guide
Introduction
The purpose of the interview is to explore:
your perceptions of the benefits, impact and cost of involvement in Get Digital
and; your
plans for taking the project forward.
The interview will take about half an hour and will be conducted by telephone at a
time convenient to you and the researcher.
Before the interview
Please read the participant information sheet, consent form and complete the self-
completion questionnaire.
Section One: Participation in Get Digital
1. How many schemes owned by your organisation participated in Get Digital?
2. What were your reasons for participating in Get Digital?
Section two: Benefit and impact
3. How has your organisation benefited from being involved in Get Digital?
4. What, if any, financial benefits has your organisation gained?
5. What do you think the long-term benefits of participation in Get Digital might
be?
6. How, if at all, have your views about the value of providing computers and
digital literacy programmes in sheltered accommodation changed during the
course of this project?
7. How, if at all, has involvement in this project affected strategic planning in
relation to ICT access and digital literacy programmes?
8. In your opinion, what contributed most to the positive outcomes?
9. What could have been done better?
Section three: Costs
10. Approximately how much time do you estimate that you and other member of
the centrally employed staff have spent on this project?
11. Aside from staffing, what, if any, other costs has your organisation incurred
through being involved in this project?
12. Taking account of staffing and other resources, approximately, how much do
you estimate involvement in the project has cost the organisation?
13. The cost of providing training and support for this project was about £6000
(Wave one)/ £5000 (Wave two) per scheme. Taking this into account, what
are your views on the value for money of this project?
Section four: Sustainability
14. What are your plans for taking this work forward?
15. What are your plans for resourcing this work?
16. Is there anything else you would like to say about Get Digital and your
involvement in the project?
Thank you for contributing your comments and ideas.
Appendix 1m: Tutor interview
Get Digital Evaluation
Tutors’ Topic Guideline
For interviews with tutors supporting the case study schemes
Introduction
The purpose of the interview is to gather data about:
The learning programme that you delivered at the case study scheme
The training and support you received from Digital Unite
Your perceptions of the successes and improvements that could be made at
the case study scheme
Your perceptions of the impact of Get Digital on the case study scheme and
what enabled this impact to be achieved.
The interview will take half an hour and will be conducted via the telephone. Please
read the consent in advance and be willing to for your consent to be recorded at the
beginning of the interview. With your permission, the interview will be digitally
recorded. The information you provide us with will be included in our report on the
Get Digital project. However, we will not name you in any reports that we write and
nothing you say will be linked to you.
Section one: The learning programme
1. What learning programme(s) did you deliver at [scheme name]?
2. How did you assess residents’ learning requirements at this scheme?
3. How did you tailor the learning programme to meet the requirements of
residents at this scheme?
Section Two: Training and support
4. What training and support did you receive from Digital Unite?
5. How useful was this?
6. What, if anything, could have been better?
7. What else would you have liked?
Section Three: Processes and impact
8. What do you think went well at this scheme?
9. What, in your view, are the key learning points from this scheme?
10. What would you do differently if you were involved in delivering a similar
programme in the future?
11. Overall, what do you think contributed most to the positive outcomes at this
scheme?
12. In your view, what impact has participation in Get Digital had?
13. How do you think this scheme will take Get Digital forward?
14. What support and input might the scheme need to do this?
Section Five: other schemes and close
If the tutor has been involved with other schemes, ask:
15. How does you experience at this scheme compare with your experience at
other schemes?
16. What do you think are the reasons for any differences?
17. Do you have any other comments about Get Digital?
Thank you for participating in this interview.
Appendix 1n: Community partner interview
Get Digital Evaluation
Community partners’ topic guide
Introduction
We would like to ask you some questions about your views and experiences of
participating in Get Digital. We are interested in finding out about:
your reasons for participating in Get Digital
what you did
what you thought about participating in Get Digital
what you got out of participating in Get Digital
what you will do as a result of participating in Get Digital.
The conversation will take place over the phone and take no more than half an hour.
I will call you at a time and on a day convenient to you. I will ask you the questions
below. You might like to think about your answers before we meet, but you don’t
have to do anything to prepare.
Section one: Participating in Get Digital
1. What were your reasons for getting involved in Get Digital?
2. How did you become involved?
3. What role did you play in Get Digital?
4. What did you enjoy?
5. What, if anything, did you find challenging?
6. What preparation and support did you have to take on your role?
7. What did you think of this preparation and support?
8. What else, if anything, would you have liked to contribute to this project?
Section Two: Benefits and impact
9. How have you benefited from being involved?
10. How do you think your college/school/organisation has benefited?
11. What aspects of the programme helped you most to achieve these benefits?
Section Three: What you will do next
12. How - if at all - will you continue to be involved with this scheme?
13. What else, if anything, will you do as a result of your experience with Get
Digital?
Section Four: Advice for other community partners
14. What would you say to other people/organisations thinking of getting involved
in similar programmes?
15. Is there anything else you would like to say about Get Digital and your
participation in the project?
Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me about your involvement in Get
Digital. Your comments will be included in our report to the Government,
without linking anything to you individually.
Appendix 2 – Data tables
Table i: Most effective factors in achieving benefits according to scheme
contacts
%
Content of the initial learning programme 67
Quality and skills of the tutor 74
Involvement of community partners 30
Peer support 47
Grant 76
Toolkits 25
Website 17
Other 4
Base: all respondents=113
Note: Total exceeds 100% as respondents could select all that apply
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 3 survey
Table ii: Most effective factors in achieving benefits according to
tutors
%
Tutoring in pairs/small groups 88
Enthusiasm of residents 86
Grant to purchase equipment/internet access 81
Commitment of the scheme manager 70
Tailored learning programme to meet residents’ needs 66
Commitment from the landlord 54
Scheme staff’s support of residents’ learning 53
Involving residents in onsite delivery 47
Quality of learning resources for residents 38
Including social events in the programme 26
Scheme staff’s ICT skills 25
Involving community partners 24
Involving young people 16
Other 5
Number that scheme was not successful at all 4
Base: all schemes=181
Note: Total percentage exceeds 100% as respondents could tick more than one answer
Source: Tutors’ survey
Table iii: Learners’ level of satisfaction with the training programme
%
Neither
Very Fairly Fairly Very
satisfied nor Base
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Tutor explained things well 63 28 5 2 2 503
Overall satisfaction with training
62 26 7 3 2 489
from tutor
Tutor understood needs 60 29 7 2 1 500
Tutor provided sufficient help 59 30 6 3 2 495
Tutor provided high quality
50 28 14 4 3 461
handouts
Length of individual sessions 45 31 13 6 5 465
Length of training programme 39 31 16 9 6 475
Base: all respondents, indicated in final column
Source: Learners’ Time 3 survey
Table iv: How far residents were involved in designing the learning
programme
%
The programme was designed around residents’ expressed interests 44
The programme was designed to meet residents’ expressed interests 48
A pre-determined programme was approved by residents 3
Residents were not involved 5
Base: all respondents =192
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 2 survey
Table v: How far residents were involved in designing the expert sessions
%
The expert sessions were completely designed around residents’ expressed
52
interests and needs
A pre-designed programme expert sessions was adapted to meet residents’
44
expressed interests
A pre-determined programme of expert sessions was approved in its entirety, by
3
residents and there was no need adaptation
Residents were not involved 1
Base: all respondents=113
Source: scheme contacts’ Time 3 survey
Table vi: How far residents were involved in grant spending
%
Residents decided how the money would be spent 4
Residents made suggestions about how the money would be spent 20
Residents, staff and managers decided together how the money would be spent 61
Residents were not involved in how the money would be spent 14
Base: all respondents=192
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 2 survey
Table vii: Number of computers in
scheme communal areas prior to Get
Digital
%
0 36
1 7
2 38
3 14
4 4
Base: all respondents=107
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 1 survey
Table viii: Type of internet access in
schemes prior to Get Digital
%
Dial up 2
Broadband 71
Wireless 38
Don’t know 7
Base: all respondents that have internet access=112
Note: Total exceeds 100% as respondents could select all that apply
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 1 survey
Table ix: Learners’ use of technology
%
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Mobile phone 78 79 82
Personal alarms, pull cord alarms etc 67 67 72
Cash dispensers (hole in the wall) 62 62 70
Cable/satellite/digital TV 62 67 69
Digital camera 41 44 51
Computer 39 93 92
Digital radio 26 33 36
Games machines e.g. Playstation 8 10 12
Base 2101 1267 530
Note: Total exceeds 100% as respondents could tick all that apply
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table x: Learners’ level of confidence using computers and the internet
%
Very confident Confident Quite confident Not very confident Not at all confident Never tried
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Sending and
receiving 6 22 30 8 19 27 9 23 13 13 18 13 9 5 4 54 13 13
email
Making phone
calls over the 2 4 4 2 5 4 3 8 8 4 11 11 5 7 7 85 65 65
internet
Using web for
5 17 25 6 20 22 11 27 22 13 15 9 8 5 6 58 16 17
information
Using web for
3 10 13 4 13 15 6 15 14 9 12 9 6 5 5 72 45 44
public services
Using web for
government 3 7 11 4 10 11 5 12 11 8 11 10 5 5 7 75 55 51
services
Using web for
social 2 6 7 3 6 6 3 10 10 7 10 7 6 6 8 80 61 61
networking
Using
1 3 5 1 4 5 3 6 5 7 10 11 7 8 10 81 69 64
spreadsheets
Using word
3 8 13 5 11 12 7 16 9 9 11 10 6 7 7 70 48 49
processing
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xi: Learners’ level of confidence using computers and the internet, amongst those who have tried
%
Very confident Confident Quite confident Not very confident Not at all confident
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Sending and
14 23 35 18 22 31 21 27 15 28 20 15 19 6 5
receiving email
Making phone
calls over the 10 12 13 12 13 13 21 22 24 27 32 32 31 20 19
internet
Using web for
12 21 30 14 24 26 25 32 26 30 18 11 20 6 7
information
Using web for
12 18 23 15 23 26 21 27 26 33 23 16 20 9 10
public services
Using web for
government 12 16 22 15 23 22 20 27 23 32 23 20 21 11 14
services
Using web for
social 10 16 19 12 16 16 15 26 26 35 27 18 28 16 21
networking
Using
4 11 13 7 14 15 14 20 14 38 31 31 38 26 26
spreadsheets
Using word
10 16 25 16 20 23 24 30 18 29 21 20 21 13 14
processing
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xii: Tracked learners’ level of confidence using computers and the internet
%
Very confident Confident Quite confident Not very confident Not at all confident Never tried
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Sending and
4 24 30 10 25 28 12 24 13 13 15 12 10 3 4 52 9 14
receiving email
Making phone
calls over the 1 3 5 2 5 4 4 8 9 5 13 9 6 4 9 83 66 65
internet
Using web for
4 18 26 5 22 21 11 28 23 16 15 9 10 5 6 55 13 16
information
Using web for
1 9 13 3 12 15 5 17 14 12 13 9 6 5 5 73 45 45
public services
Using web for
government 1 7 10 2 11 9 5 13 12 10 11 9 7 5 6 75 53 54
services
Using web for
social 1 4 6 2 7 4 3 10 9 8 11 8 5 8 9 82 61 65
networking
Using
0 4 5 1 7 5 5 7 4 5 11 10 9 9 9 80 62 68
spreadsheets
Using word
3 10 13 4 12 11 9 18 10 9 12 10 8 7 6 68 42 51
processing
Base: all tracked respondents=309
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xiii: Tracked learners’ level of confidence using computers and the internet, amongst those who have tried
%
Very confident Confident Quite confident Not very confident Not at all confident
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Sending and
8 27 35 21 27 32 25 26 15 26 17 13 20 4 4
receiving email
Using web for
9 20 31 11 25 25 24 32 27 35 18 11 22 5 7
information
Base: all tracked respondents=309
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xiv: Learners’ anticipated benefits from involvement in Get Digital
%
Keeping in touch with friends and family 70
Developing ICT skills 64
Helping to pursue interests and hobbies 58
Finding out about public services 51
Meeting new people 49
Finding out about local events 47
Saving money 32
Other 4
Note: Total exceeds 100% as respondents could tick all that apply
Source: Learners’ Time 1 surveys
Table xv: Frequency of computer activity
%
Several times a Less than once a
Every day Once a week Once a month Never
week month
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Sending and
15 10 12 19 22 25 13 27 22 7 8 8 12 10 15 33 22 18
receiving email
Making phone
calls over the 1 1 0 2 2 1 3 5 5 2 2 2 4 6 5 89 84 86
internet
Using web for
8 8 9 18 25 25 16 25 22 8 10 14 15 9 10 35 23 21
information
Using web for
2 1 2 5 6 4 5 9 10 8 9 11 14 14 18 67 61 57
public services
Using web for
government 1 0 2 3 3 2 5 6 7 6 7 6 16 15 16 69 69 66
services
Using web for
social 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 7 6 3 3 4 8 7 8 76 75 72
networking
Using
1 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 9 7 8 83 83 80
spreadsheets
Using word
2 3 3 9 9 10 9 9 11 7 10 8 15 10 9 58 59 60
processing
Base: all respondents that use a computer
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xvi: Frequency of computer activity, amongst tracked learners
%
Several times a Less than once a
Every day Once a week Once a month Never
week month
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Sending and
7 10 12 22 25 27 17 32 22 9 7 9 13 9 15 31 16 17
receiving email
Making phone
calls over the 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 6 5 1 3 1 7 4 5 88 85 87
internet
Using web for
6 8 8 15 29 28 15 22 24 13 11 14 19 11 8 34 19 19
information
Using web for
0 0 1 4 7 4 2 7 11 9 7 10 14 15 18 71 63 56
public services
Using web for
government 0 0 1 2 5 2 4 5 9 6 5 5 17 17 16 72 68 67
services
Using web for
social 2 1 4 2 4 4 3 9 5 2 4 3 9 8 8 81 74 77
networking
Using
0 1 1 4 4 4 2 3 2 2 4 3 9 8 8 83 81 82
spreadsheets
Using word
2 4 3 9 11 10 11 8 11 7 11 6 16 13 9 54 54 61
processing
Base: all tracked respondents that use a computer
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xvii: Frequency of using internet for activities, amongst tracked learners
%
Several times a Less than once a
Every day Once a week Once a month Never
week month
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Listen to the radio/watch
11 6 9 2 6 4 3 5 4 2 2 3 6 6 7 76 76 73
TV
Play games 15 11 12 9 16 15 6 11 11 4 3 5 8 7 5 58 52 52
Watch films or listen to
5 4 3 5 6 7 4 6 9 7 3 4 6 6 5 73 75 71
music
Use your bank’s online
2 2 2 7 5 4 7 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 81 87 87
service
Find out about products
2 1 3 4 9 11 9 19 15 13 10 15 17 15 16 56 47 41
and services
Buy products or services 1 1 1 2 2 2 8 5 4 5 8 10 12 12 16 73 73 68
Sell products or services 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 95 98 97
Make travel
0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 2 4 20 14 16 77 81 78
reservations/bookings
Compare products and
1 0 1 1 5 8 6 13 11 8 8 7 15 11 13 70 64 60
prices
Pay bills 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 6 3 5 3 2 3 85 91 88
Use government
0 0 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 2 4 6 11 11 14 82 80 75
services/websites
Base: all tracked respondents that use a computer
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xviii: Attitude change towards computers and the
internet
%
T2 T3
Lot more positive 58 43
Little more positive 25 26
Stayed the same 15 27
Little more negative 1 2
Lot more negative 1 2
Base 1208 486
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xix: Likelihood of using a computer and the internet in the future
%
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know
T2 T3 T2 T3 T2 T3 T2 T3 T2 T3
Computer 68 67 20 20 3 1 4 5 6 6
Internet 61 55 23 24 3 3 4 6 9 10
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xx: Activities most likely to be carried out in the future
%
T2 T3
Send and receive email 72 74
Make phone calls over the Internet 13 10
Search for information using the Internet 76 76
Access public services on the Internet 27 25
Access government services/websites 18 18
Use social networking sites 18 17
Use spreadsheets e.g. Excel 9 11
Word processing e.g. Word 30 32
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxi: future technology learning preferences
%
T2 T3
Like to learn more about computers 60 55
Like to learn more about the Internet 57 51
Like to learn about different technologies 27 27
Do not want to do any more learning about technology 12 18
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxii: Help to continue using computers
%
T2 T3
Further training 67 63
Access to learning materials 27 23
Someone to help me practise what I have learnt 56 45
Improved access to computers/my own computer 27 24
I do not need any further help 6 12
Don’t know 4 6
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxiii: Self-reported benefits and changes as a result of Get Digital
%
T2 T3
More confident in ability to learn 72 64
Easier to access information 60 64
Self confidence improved 53 52
Easier to keep in touch with people 50 52
Developed knowledge of technology skills 48 45
Met new people 43 36
In contact with family/friends more often 41 43
More interested in technology 34 32
Have bought computer N/A 33*
Developed interests and hobbies 30 33
More aware of public services 28 32
Technology has saved me time 22 27
More control of my life/make informed decisions 18 17
More aware of local events 16 21
More aware of entitlements 15 16
Technology has saved me money 13 18
Use public services more 10 10
More active in local events/issues 8 8
Other 1 1
Not yet experienced any benefits/changes 8 16
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxiv: Frequency of communication with family residents do not live with
%
Three or more times Once or twice a Once or twice a Once or twice a Less than once a
Every few months
a week week month year year/Never
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Meet up (including
both arranged and 25 22 21 38 39 41 15 18 19 11 9 9 5 5 4 6 7 6
chance meetings)
Speak on the
50 47 44 31 36 38 11 9 11 3 2 3 2 1 1 4 4 3
phone
Write or email 9 12 14 10 24 22 12 20 25 11 10 9 11 6 5 47 29 25
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxv: Frequency of social activities
%
T1 T2 T3
Never 8 6 6
Less than once a month 10 8 8
Once a month 7 6 7
Several times a month 12 13 14
Once a week 25 23 23
Several times a week 35 39 39
Every day 4 4 4
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxvi: Whether residents’ use of communal computers has
changed
%
Residents use the computers about the same amount 27
Residents use the computers more frequently 56
Residents use the computers less frequently 12
More residents use the computers 43
Few residents use the computers 6
Base: all respondents=113
Note: Total exceeds 100% as respondents could select all that apply
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 3 survey
Table xxvii: Services used in sheltered accommodation in the last three
months
%
T1 T2 T3
Meals on wheels 3 3 2
Home help/home care 12 12 14
Community alarm 23 18 22
Mobile library service 13 13 13
Visits from health care staff e.g. nurse, GP 17 16 24
Help from friends and family 38 36 41
Social worker/care manager 19 19 18
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxviii: Services visited
%
T1 T2 T3
Local library 32 37 39
Day centre/drop-in centre 10 10 10
Leisure/community centre 24 28 32
Other 12 6 8
Base 2098 1260 481
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxix: Whether Get Digital has improved communication or
community involvement
%
Communication between scheme staff and residents 73
Involvement with the local community 54
Communication between residents and landlord 51
Residents’ contact with young people 49
Communication between scheme staff and other schemes 45
Communication between scheme staff and landlord 41
Other 9
Base: all respondents=113
Note: Total exceeds 100% as respondents could select all that apply
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 3 survey
Table xxx: Self-reported health
%
T1 T2 T3
Very Good 11 15 13
Good 38 38 35
Fair 43 37 40
Bad 7 8 9
Very Bad 2 1 3
Base 2020 1186 484
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxxi: Benefits to health as a result of Get Digital
%
T2 T3
Look after myself better 14 20
Know more about my health 11 18
Better able to manage my health 7 10
Better able to manage pain 4 8
Easier to get about 3 8
Take less medication 2 5
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxxii: Benefits to health as a result of Get Digital,
amongst tracked learners
%
T2 T3
Look after myself better 16 20
Know more about my health 11 17
Better able to manage my health 7 10
Better able to manage pain 4 6
Easier to get about 3 6
Take less medication 3 5
Base: all tracked respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxxiii: Overall life satisfaction
%
T1 T2 T3
Very satisfied 28 32 30
Fairly satisfied 53 52 52
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 11 10 14
Fairly dissatisfied 5 4 2
Very dissatisfied 2 1 1
Don’t know 1 2 1
Base 1972 1161 483
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxxiv: Satisfaction with way of living
%
Neither satisfied nor
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know
dissatisfied
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Social life 28 29 28 51 53 50 13 11 16 5 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1
Way leisure
27 31 31 52 54 53 13 10 13 6 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
time is spent
Standard of
27 25 22 54 57 55 15 13 17 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
living
Income 16 12 14 49 52 46 23 23 26 7 8 8 4 4 3 1 2 3
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxxv: How residents feel about themselves
%
Neither agree nor
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
disagree
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
Feel positive about themselves 18 19 20 58 58 56 19 19 21 5 3 4 1 0 0
Feel in control over what happens in most
16 17 17 66 65 66 13 14 14 4 4 3 1 0 0
situations
Feel what they do in life is valuable and
15 18 18 57 54 53 23 23 25 4 4 4 1 0 0
worthwhile
Feel that what happens in life determined by
10 11 11 53 52 51 27 27 27 10 9 9 1 2 2
factors outside their control
When things go wrong it takes a long time to get
4 4 4 27 27 26 32 33 32 32 33 32 5 4 6
back to normal
Base: all respondents
Source: Learners’ Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 surveys
Table xxxvi: How far residents were involved in planning future provision and training
%
Residents planned future ICT provision and training 9
Residents made suggestions about future ICT provision and training 26
Residents, staff and managers decided together future ICT provision and training 61
Residents were not involved in future ICT provision and training 4
Base: all respondents =113
Source: Scheme contacts’ Time 3 survey
Table xxxvii: How Wave 3 schemes plan to use the resources in the future
To deliver learning to residents 30
To ensure digital learning continues in the future 27
To improve access to computers and the internet for residents 23
To involve other individuals or organisations 17
To deliver training to staff 9
To improve access to computers and the internet for staff 8
There are no plans to use the resources 5
Base: all respondents=45
Note: respondents could tick all that apply
Source: Wave 3 online survey
Table xxxviii: Tutors’ perception of the level of success of Get
Digital at schemes
%
Very successful 48
Fairly successful 40
Neither successful nor unsuccessful 6
Fairly unsuccessful 5
Very unsuccessful 1
Base: all schemes=181
Source: Tutors’ survey
Table xxxix: Learners’ enjoyment of learning sessions
%
Enjoyed every session 78
Enjoyed most sessions 13
Enjoyed some sessions 4
Enjoyed a few sessions 3
Not enjoyed any of the sessions 1
Base: all respondents=1244
Source: Learners’ Time 2 survey
