Exploring the Barriers and Potential Opportunities of Technology Integration in Community-Based Social Service Organizations

Social care services are designed to improve human welfare and overall well-being, primarily by assisting economically disadvantaged or marginalized individuals, such as those living in poverty, individuals with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, and victims of domestic abuse [15, 19]. In 2019, according to the United States Census Bureau, 12.8% of the U.S. population lived below the poverty line, affecting approximately 44 million individuals, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities, who require social services [71]. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that in January 2019, 567,715 individuals were homeless on a single night, many of whom depend on social services for survival [79]. Furthermore, data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) shows that 8.3 million adults in the United States had serious thoughts of suicide in 2019, emphasizing the need for mental and emotional support through social services [3].

To address these challenges, social care services provide a wide range of support, including housing assistance, food banks, emergency shelters, healthcare, and education [15, 39]. Community-based organizations, such as non-profits, churches, and neighborhood associations, play a significant role in providing these services to populations in need [6, 37, 63]. These community-based organizations are known for their unique strengths, including being more client led and community led, accessing “hard to reach groups,” being responsive to local people, and being innovative builders of social capital [36].

Non-profit organizations, as one of the major players in providing social care services in the United States, offer a wide range of services [15, 39] and operate at local, state, or national levels [67]. Despite their significant contribution to communities in need, these organizations face several challenges, including limited funding, inadequate staffing, and limited reach to marginalized populations [6, 64]. The funding for non-profits is often uncertain, relying on donations, grants, and government funding, making it vulnerable to changes in economic conditions and government priorities [6]. This can lead to difficulties in maintaining their services and programs, especially during economic downturns (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic [60]). Furthermore, these challenges can impact their capacity for meeting the increased demand for their services during times of increased need [47, 64].

Religious organizations, community centers, and private organizations also play an important role in providing social services. For example, churches have a long history of promoting social change and offering essential services to the disadvantaged, which has led to the establishment of community hospitals, educational opportunities, and various forms of welfare and support services [37, 63]. However, like non-profits, these community-based organizations also face funding constraints and limitations in resources and capabilities [18], which can impact their ability to serve those in need effectively.

In our research, we aim to understand how technology can augment the practices of community-based social service organizations and improve their reach to community members who need their services. To understand the practices and technological challenges faced by different types of organizations, our research involved collaboration with a diverse range of organizations that provide social services, including non-profits, private organizations, and churches.

Over the years, the HCI community has made increasing efforts to explore the design of technologies that can enhance access to essential social services for vulnerable communities, such as those living in low-resource areas, those with chronic health conditions, and older adults. Several of these studies address healthcare access [38], food assistance [53, 54], education [45], job opportunities [25], and safety concerns [22]. To ensure that the technology solutions are tailored to the specific needs of these groups, many of these studies involve collaboration with members of these communities.

For example, Woelfer and Hendry [82, 83] worked with homeless youths to identify their technology needs and design solutions that could improve their access to community resources. Similarly, Mohan and Sarma [53] designed a text-based system oriented to the homeless population that provides information about free meals and supports information sharing through mobile phones. Dantec and Edwards [48] also collaborated with a local homeless community to understand their challenges accessing social services and developed an information-sharing service that aggregates information about services in the area and disseminates it through mobile devices.

Some of these studies also focus on improving access to healthcare services, such as the web and phone service developed by Hirsh and Liu [38], which helps immigrants connect with health resources in their local neighborhoods. Similarly, Gentry et al. [33] introduced a service that provides mobile devices to low-income HIV-positive individuals to communicate with their healthcare providers. Balaam et al. [8] designed a tool to assist service users with rehabilitation activities and keeping care providers informed, whereas Dow et al. [27] designed a feedback collection platform to encourage advocacy and the improvement of health and care services.

Other HCI studies have explored job access [23, 24, 25], education [45], and safety [22]. For instance, the work by Bowyer et al. [13] engaged with families who are frequent users of social services to gather their perspectives on how care providers should handle their data. The authors found a need for cooperative relationships between providers and families through shared interaction with their data.

These studies emphasize the significance of collaborating with vulnerable and marginalized communities to identify their needs and create technology-based solutions to enhance their access to services that address their social needs. Our approach, however, differs in that we partner with organizations serving marginalized populations to investigate how technology may be optimally integrated into their operations to enhance their ability to provide efficient and effective social services to these groups.

Within the HCI literature, there are several studies involving partnerships with community-based organizations that work with marginalized communities [22, 23, 24, 25]. For instance, Dillahunt et al. [23] collaborated with experts from community-based non-profit organizations to design a tool that helps low-income job seekers acquire the necessary skills for a desired job. The tool connects job seekers with volunteer and employment opportunities, allowing them to gain valuable experience and skills [25]. Dickinson et al. [22] worked with community outreach workers to develop an app that aims to prevent violence in their community.

In another study, Taylor et al. [76] held participatory design workshops to inform the development of a tool that assists in the delivery of home care services. Salai et al. [66] collaborated with social and healthcare organizations and service users to design a system that improves access to information and quality of life. Grönvall and Lundberg [35] created a web-based tool that allows social workers and service users with intellectual disabilities to collaborate on child care. Finally, Slovák et al. [74] worked with social care professionals to develop a tool that helps them acquire new skills, such as responding to the emotional and social well-being of service users.

These studies demonstrate the importance of collaborating with communities and organizations to better understand the needs and challenges faced by marginalized populations. This approach leads to the development of technology that has the potential to elevate these communities and empower them.

Our work complements the existing body of work by focusing on empowering community-based social service organizations through the use of technology, with the ultimate aim of improving their operations and the well-being of the populations they serve. One of the unique aspects of our research is that it encompasses a diverse range of organizations, including both informal private organizations and those facing funding constraints, that address a broad spectrum of social needs. Through our need-finding study, we aim to gain insight into their current practices and engage with these communities to identify areas where technology can potentially enhance their capabilities and structures in providing social services.

Our study was conducted in a mid-sized city in Northern Indiana. The city is classified as one of the rust belt cities, characterized by the decline of industrial production and a growing rate of poverty and homelessness. At the time of the study, the poverty rate was 21.5% [41], which was higher than both the state average of 12.9% [75] and the national average of 11.4% [14].

The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the already pressing issues, with marginalized communities being disproportionately affected. As a result, access to social services became a crucial need for the city. Community-based organizations, such as food banks, crisis centers, and shelters, had to accommodate a growing number of individuals who were forced to rely on these services due to job loss. These services became a vital safety net for the citizens during this challenging time.

Our study took place from January to May 2020, amid the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the vital significance of addressing the social service needs of marginalized communities during these trying times. Our research was driven by the increasing demand for social services and the difficulties that community-based organizations faced in meeting this demand. Our aim was to collaborate with these organizations to understand their current practices and challenges, as well as the technological barriers they face, and to identify ways in which technology could better enhance their provision of social services. The findings from our study have the potential to inform the design of technology solutions that can empower these organizations in effectively responding to the social needs of their communities.

As a team of diverse individuals, we bring unique and valuable perspectives to our research on social services and the role of technology in addressing the needs of marginalized communities. The first author, an individual from a developing country, brings a personal perspective and understanding of the challenges faced by communities struggling with poverty and limited access to resources. The second and third authors, both design professors, bring a strong commitment to understanding and addressing community needs through design and technology. The fifth author, a research professor, brings extensive experience working on projects aimed at empowering marginalized communities. None of the authors currently fall under a vulnerable population.

Our diverse backgrounds and experiences inform our approach to this research and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the needs of marginalized communities. Our team is dedicated to approaching this research with empathy and a deep commitment to social justice. We believe that our unique perspectives will lead to a richer and more impactful research outcome that can positively impact communities struggling with poverty and effective access to social services.

We initially contacted 61 organizations that operate locally and provide various types of social service assistance such as education, housing, food, employment, and legal services. We contacted these organizations through e-mail, cold calls, and texting. We finally recruited 21 service providers, all of whom have an average of 5 years of experience serving community members.¹ These providers offered services such as therapy/counseling (n = 1), food assistance (n = 6), correctional reentry (n = 1), housing assistance (n = 5), and healthcare (n = 8) (Table 1 provides more details). The populations served by these organizations are diverse and include the elderly, young children, formerly incarcerated individuals, and individuals and families struggling with poverty, unemployment, homelessness, substance abuse, and chronic mental and emotional health issues. Our institutional review board approved this study, and all participants completed consent forms. We did not offer monetary compensation for participation.

We conducted our interviews remotely using Zoom and phone calls. The hour-long sessions gave us valuable insights into the referral and information-sharing processes of providers, as well as the challenges they face when incorporating technology into their practices. In our research, we engaged with service providers through a series of questions designed to identify both challenges (deficits based) and strengths (assets based) within their operational context. Taking a deficits approach, our aim was to elicit participants’ existing strategies for providing social services, striving to gain insight into their current practices, technological ecosystems, and the challenges they encounter. For example, some of the questions we asked to identify challenges or barriers faced by service providers included the following: “Whatplatforms or strategies do you use to get your information out? How challenging is it to keep up with each of these platforms?” “How often does your critical information (such as hours, phone number, locations, services offered) change?” and “How do you keep users aware of these changes?”

Further, taking an assets-based approach, our aim was to elicit participants’ effective practices, strategies, and resources that enable them to successfully provide their services and impact their communities. For instance, to understand their communication methods, we asked the question “Whose responsibility is it to communicate your organization’s new information?” Researchers then further probed about the strategies they used by asking “What strategies or tools does your organization use to ensure the information effectively reaches your intended audience?” Some other questions we asked were “Can you tell us about how you make referrals to people who need your services?” and “Can you describe how you collaborate with other organizations to share information and resources, and what strategies have you used to build and maintain these collaborations?” These questions aim to identify the existing strengths of these organizations in terms of outreach, information management, and collaboration.

Although we asked participants a standard set of interview questions, we allowed room for the conversation to remain open ended. We did not record our interviews due to concerns about privacy from several of our participants. After each interview, we held a debrief session where team members discussed what we learned and gathered notes, which we then combined to summarize each day’s outcomes.

Notes from our interviews served as the main source of data for this study. The interviews were conducted in pairs, with one person facilitating the conversation while the other took notes. We utilized affinity diagramming for analysis [40], with both an Excel database and Miro.com, an online platform for collaboration [49]. These tools allowed us to easily share and categorize data and provide real-time feedback to one another. Our analysis effort involved a multidisciplinary team consisting of researchers from the HCI and Design teams, as well as five summer interns who attended the sessions.

To ensure the reliability of our interpretations drawn from the interviews, we held debriefing sessions after each interview. This practice allowed us to summarize and begin processing the data, thus facilitating the formal analysis.

As part of our analysis process, we transformed our interview notes into sticky notes. The team then organized these sticky notes into groups around categories/topics. This exercise not only refined and integrated the emerging themes we identified through inductive reasoning but also helped us address and resolve any discrepancies in interpretation. In this case, we grouped notes related to common practices together while separating those related to challenges or barriers. We noted the participant identification number associated with each response or insight. This, along with data tables in an Excel sheet, helped us document places where the same finding applied to multiple providers. It also allowed us to record the frequency of a particular response to an interview question.

After the completion of the affinity mapping exercise, the entire team met to examine and summarize the results, address questions, and resolve any remaining questions. We present a summary of the themes developed from this analysis in Table 2.

Our analysis revealed two key practices that social service providers frequently engage in—making referrals and information sharing. Both making referrals and information sharing are vital for offering quality and relevant social services [34, 46, 64]. Making referrals involves directing clients (service users) to organizations or resources that meet their needs. For example, a social service provider may refer a client to a food bank if they need food assistance. Information sharing involves exchanging information within and between organizations, agencies, and social service providers to enhance their services [64]. It could also involve sharing information with potential and current donors to generate support for enhancing their services [10, 43, 69].

Section 6 will explore the themes developed from our data analysis, with a specific focus on the technologies and strategies these providers use for making referrals and sharing information. We present a summary of the technologies our participants use in Table 3. Additionally, Table 4 provides a summary of key practices and strategies derived from our findings.

Given the important role technology plays in facilitating services to community members, as highlighted by our participants during the interviews, we sought to understand the technological barriers that they faced. Our analysis revealed several challenges. These include concerns about technology adoption, notably a lack of access to technology and insufficient IT capabilities. Additionally, there were issues related to data collection and management. Service providers also expressed concerns about their web presence and the effectiveness of their community outreach. Several organizations reported difficulties with effectively providing their services and programs through digital channels, subsequently limiting their reach and engagement with clients. We discuss these insights in depth in this section and also provide a summary of these findings in Table 5.

The challenges faced by community-based social service organizations are often compounded by the difficulties encountered by the vulnerable populations they aim to serve. Throughout our interviews, participants frequently referred to the barriers their guests faced in engaging with them and accessing their services. These barriers included limited access to technology, limited digital literacy skills, and the implications of mental health issues.

P3 highlighted the importance of digital literacy in accessing online services by stating, “People who need these services need to know how to search for us online and the appropriate search terms.” However, several of our participants indicated that most of their clients lacked proficient search skills, with P6 stating, “Clients don’t know how to search.”

The reasons behind this lack of search skills among the clients are multifold, as mentioned by the service providers. Participants emphasized that the struggle their clients faced when attempting online searches often stemmed from an unawareness of their eligibility for such services. Highlighting this, P19 shared, “A lot of individuals aren’t even aware they need the service, whether it’s qualifying for disability benefits or applying for insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Without knowing what you’re looking for, it’s impossible to conduct an effective search.” Some providers attributed this struggle to the complexities faced by their clients in navigating the digital landscape. For instance, P5 highlighted the complexity of certain available digital platforms. Discussing the 211 service, they reported, “Search sub-categories on 211 are very difficult even for an expert.” These comments underscore the challenges that community members with limited technological skills face when trying to access these essential services.

Limited internet access was another dimension of these barriers that participants commented on. P5 revealed that “People in need typically get access to our services from the library.” This sentiment was echoed by P3, who noted, “In the community, mental health and the likelihood of reliable internet is pretty low.” These comments underline the need for accessible and inclusive technology solutions for communities in need.

Some participants further illustrated the complexities of technology access and use among service users. For instance, P5 shared that “most guests have flip (non-smart) phones,” further stating that these guests often “struggle with tech because they didn’t have access growing up.” Such observations shed light on the struggle with digital literacy among service users, with this often tied to their lack of prior exposure to technology. In a similar vein, P19 noted that there are those who “have phones but don’t use them to look up services,” a comment that indicates challenges tied to usability and navigation of technology for service access. Adding to this, P9 stated that “Most of our residents have never seen the website. No tech access or internet access,” highlighting the barriers faced by clients in interacting with online services.

The issue of the digital divide was amplified by P8 and P16, particularly referencing challenges in rural communities. P8 acknowledged, “Some people don’t realize there are broadband issues in rural communities.” P16 added that “Even public Wifi isn’t great because people don’t always have their own devices.” Reflecting the crucial role public resources play in addressing the digital divide, P13 expressed the importance of libraries for clients to access services, noting “Access without libraries is impossible for my clients.”

P3 and P5 drew attention to the role of mental health issues and addiction in influencing technological competency. P5 observed that “Guests [service users] have high levels of mental illness or addiction and, regardless of their age, still struggle with tech.” P3 echoed this comment and further emphasized the correlation between mental health issues and limited access to the internet, stating, “Not many people in the realm of mental health have internet.” Their comments shed light on the additional barriers that mental health challenges present in the context of technology use and social service access for marginalized communities.

Given these challenges, it is important that the integration of technology into community-based social services be done in a way that supports both providers and the communities they serve, instead of creating additional barriers. By adopting an intentional, user- and community-centered approach to the deployment of technology for communities in need, we can enhance support for community members. This approach can also assist service providers in their shared goal of ensuring effective access to and use of social services.

Our research findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the challenges faced by marginalized communities in accessing social services. Our results are consistent with previous studies highlighting the significance of technology access and digital literacy as critical barriers to accessing these services [6, 64]. By focusing on the experiences of service providers, our study offers a unique perspective that complements the existing body of research on this topic. Our findings indicate that technology access and IT capabilities are significant concerns for these organizations, which is not unexpected given that many of them have limited budgets and resources [64]. Moreover, research shows that community-based workers often come from the communities they serve [22] and may confront similar challenges, including limitations in technology access and marginalization. This can hinder their provision of social services and exacerbate technology adoption barriers within their organizations.

These findings have implications for developing technology solutions for community-based social service organizations in marginalized communities. They suggest the need for a more inclusive and community-centered approach to the design of technology solutions, one that considers the unique needs and technological limitations of providers who serve these communities and the community members themselves. The framework developed by Anuyah et al. [5] can serve as a useful guide for designers and researchers seeking to better understand the complexities of technology use in marginalized communities, and provide support during collaboration with these communities for research and design purposes. We summarize findings from our research with suggested interventions in Table 6.

Our study also highlights the importance of considering the potential consequences of technology solutions on marginalized communities. Although technology can potentially improve access to essential social services, it can also perpetuate marginalization if not carefully designed to meet the specific needs of these populations. Social service providers face challenges in providing services. In contrast, marginalized and vulnerable individuals who need these services face access barriers such as limited search skills and a lack of internet connectivity. These challenges emphasize the need for considering the technological limitations of marginalized communities when developing solutions to improve access to social services. Researchers and designers must adopt a mindful and equitable approach in all stages of interaction and collaboration with these communities, including meaningful engagement with community members and service providers to understand their needs and perspectives and consider the potential impacts of technology solutions before implementation. Empowering research methods, such as design justice [20], value sensitive design [30], and social innovation design [51], should be integrated into the established methodologies for engaging these communities in research, such as co-design [68] and participatory research [28] approaches.

Our research has revealed several technological limitations in the practices of community-based social service organizations concerning managing information and knowledge for making referrals, sharing information, collecting and managing data, and conducting community outreach. These challenges are linked to the broader concept of knowledge management, which involves the processes used within organizations to find, store, share, and apply knowledge [2, 52]. In light of these challenges, we offer recommendations for researchers and designers seeking to improve the practices of community-based organizations and to empower them through design. These recommendations, outlined in Table 7, are the result of our research team brainstorming and are informed by previous HCI and knowledge management research.

Our research findings have revealed several significant barriers that service users face when trying to engage with providers and access essential social services. Key challenges include a lack of digital literacy skills and limited technology access. These barriers align with the literature on obstacles encountered by vulnerable and marginalized groups within a technologically driven society [12, 50].

With these barriers in mind, our research team has identified a set of design recommendations that are oriented toward community members. These recommendations directly address each of the barriers we identified in Section 5.3.

Our findings are limited to social service organizations in a specific community in the United States and may not be applicable to other regions or communities. However, we believe that our research provides a valuable starting point for researchers looking to understand the needs of communities facing marginalization and poverty and the role of technology in augmenting the capabilities of community-based social service organizations in addressing social needs. In future studies, we plan to explore how factors such as ethnicity, location, and geography influence our findings concerning the use of technology by community-based social service organizations and the obstacles they encounter. We acknowledge that remote communities might present unique insights divergent from our current findings.

Moreover, our research does not consider the broader social and political constraints that may impact access to social services. We understand that these constraints play a critical role in shaping the experiences of vulnerable populations seeking social services. We plan to explore these factors in future research. To address the limitations that we have identified in our research, we plan to use participatory methodologies in collaboration with both service providers and community members to research and design tools tailored to their needs and to promote social service access.

Further, although our discussion in this article is heavily centered around technology, we recognize that technological solutions may not always be appropriate. Echoing the sentiments of Toyama [80], we strongly believe that technology should not be forced onto communities if they do not perceive a need for it. We are not suggesting that technology is the “panacea” for all challenges. The focus on technology in our discussion stems from the fact that these organizations recognize the need for efficiency and the importance of extending their reach to those who need their services the most. Many have adopted technology in some form or another, such as through websites and social media. Our work aims to identify areas where technology can more effectively support these organizations, ultimately promoting social justice and enhancing social service provision to vulnerable and marginalized communities.

We invite fellow researchers and the wider community to contribute to this effort, focusing on open questions related to the role of social service organizations in addressing poverty, the impact of sociopolitical constraints on social service access, and the design of tools effectively supporting vulnerable populations. Further, we seek to investigate potential ethical implications of technology use for both service organizations and the marginalized communities they serve, especially considering the often undemocratic availability of technology for marginalized groups. We look forward to advancing this important work and invite others to join us in this endeavor.