Foreword

The national research program on the France Services Digital Advisor scheme is funded by the Digital Society program of the French National Agency for Territorial Cohesion (ANCT). It is being carried out by the Askoria research center, under the scientific direction of Pierre Mazet [1] (team: Florian Pedrot [2], Jordy Stefan [3], Alice Valiergue [4]). It is also part of the Labaccès action-research program. The "Research" component of Labaccès is itself the fruit of a partnership between Ti Lab (Breton regional public innovation laboratory) and the Askoria research center.

This article is one of the publications of the Digital Society Laboratory and, as such, includes editorial choices reflecting the positioning of this information site.

Research objective

In addition to filling a gap in the number of digital support professionals, the "Conseiller numérique France Services" (CnFS) program is based on a strong assumption of action:

Its deployment in local areas will make it possible to launch, initiate or consolidate local dynamics or strategies for digital inclusion, aimed at reducing digital inequalities and increasing the digital skills of the French people.

This hypothesis implies considering the system not as an end in itself - the deployment of 4,000 CnFS across the country - but as a means of government action aimed at reducing digital inequalities and increasing the skills of the French people, by the territories, on the territories.

Consequently, the general aim of this research program is to describe the way in which territories take advantage of the Conseiller numérique France Services scheme to develop local digital inclusion strategies/policies.

It is based on two types of methodology:

• A quantitative questionnaire survey aimed at digital advisors on the one hand, and reception facility managers on the other. The aim is to gather the views (information, perceptions, representations) of the main players in the system.
• A qualitative survey, using interviews and observations, in 5 territories. The aim is to answer the question in its local and territorial dimension, by adopting a comprehensive qualitative approach (documentation of the system, semi-structured interviews, monitoring of ad hoc bodies, etc.) enabling us to grasp the logics of players at local level.

This research has a longitudinal dimension, in order to monitor and observe the deployment of the system over time. The elements presented below are interim results that need to be put into perspective with the final results.

Survey documents

1-Methodology

The results presented in this article are based on two waves of questionnaires. The first wave was administered between November 16 and December 19, 2021. The second wave was administered between May 25 and June 15, 2022. The questionnaire was made available to respondents via an Internet link. In order to collect as many responses as possible and obtain relevant data processing, all questions were mandatory. A total of 1,071 CnFS responded to the entire questionnaire, comprising just over 100 questions, i.e. almost 40% of CnFS in post (i.e. having completed training) at the time of the second wave. The results of the 2 waves are very homogeneous.

2-Profile of CnFS in the sample

"The sample of respondents a fairly young average age (average 36 years old), with a relatively even distribution of educational levels (baccalaureate or less, Bac + 2 and Bac +3 and above) in three thirds, despite a slight preponderance of Bac +3 and above (37.1%).

At the time of application, almost half (46.5%) of advisors were looking for workmore than a third (37.4%) were already in employment, with the remainder mainly in civic service, education or training.

The professional experiences of the advisors in the sample, who selected more than 3 items on average, were mainly in the field of welcoming the public (62.5%), and digital support (47.5%)."

The survey also shows that "the variables of interest for the position all garner a high agreement score (over 8/10 on average; on a scale of 1 to 10, CnFS give a response higher than 8), particularly for its mixed dimension, combining digital and public support. The social dimension scored slightly higher (8.54/10) than the purely digital dimension (8.23/10).

In terms of digital practices, the sample has a majority profile of internet users (9.37/10) and social network users (6.87/10)".

3-Training

There is room for improvement in initial training. In fact, the survey reports that the overall satisfaction of the advisors questioned is 36/100 (average degree of agreement ranging from 0 to 100), and is frequently perceived as ill-suited to the job (68/100) or perceived as incomplete (73/100).

The initial training was based on the professional qualification of "Responsable d'espace de médiation numérique" (REMN). This was the only professional qualification in the sector available when the program was launched.

4-Posting

Conditions for starting work or landing advisors

A majority of CnFSs (58%) said they had not encountered any particular difficulties when taking up their new positions. Where difficulties were encountered, they mainly concerned the definition of tasks. Job definition seems to have been a gradual process, incorporating training time and continuing beyond it.

The survey reveals that "more than 4 out of 5 (83.5%) of the advisor positions were new.. Twice as many private structures (mainly associations) had an equivalent position before (27% vs. 13% for public structures): this could indicate a shift in the funding of these positions, or the funding of previously unpaid positions (volunteers)".

60% of respondents claim to have sufficient equipment for their interventions. When equipment is lacking, it is mainly a laptop (69.6%) or a quality Internet connection (59.4%).

The scheme has provided human resources that were previously lacking, but now the problems encountered are of a material nature (space, computers, etc.). In many cases, local authorities, particularly smaller ones, had not anticipated the need for equipment in the field.

Diversified recruitment conditions in public-sector structures

For jobs in the public sector,"67.6% of respondents were recruited in category C, 23.5% in category B, and 8.9% in category A.

Within categories A and B, there is a slight over-representation of CnFS who have been classified in short training courses (P1 and P2, 105 and 280 hours respectively). Similarly, there is a slight over-representation of bac +3 and above among P1 and P2, i.e. in categories A and B".

5-Structures, locations and types of intervention

It should be noted that"public structures remain in the vast majority (71%) across both waves. Cities top the list (27%), followed by communities of communes (21%) and départements (13%).

CnFS recruited by private structures (28%) mention social support as their structure's main field of intervention (30.9%). Digital support is mentioned comparatively much less often (11.9%)". The scheme has therefore enabled a large number of associations to launch digital mediation activities.

A very large majority of "multi-site" operations

The survey shows that "more than ¾ of advisors work on several sitesthe average number of sites is 7". It should be noted that the majority of CnFS work on between 2 and 5 sites (56%).

"In addition, the CnFS working on several sites cite the social welcome center as their main place of work much more often (31%) than those working on a single site (18%); the latter, on the other hand, are more likely to cite third-party sites as their main place of work (9.2% vs. 2.7% of "multi-sites").

These data reflect a fundamental aspect of the way the system has been developed: the vast majority of organizations have sought to deploy CnFSs across the country, by multiplying their points of presence. This is not a centralized model in which organizations concentrate their advisors on their main site".

Thus, the approach of getting as close as possible to the target audiences (in line with the notion of " going towards ") plays a major role in the implementation of the system.

Jobs with multiple types of intervention

"The CnFSs surveyed offer a wide range of services individual support by appointment (84%), individual introduction to computers (78.5%), group workshops on basic skills (76%), individual support for all (74.2%), group workshops on digital uses (68.6%), training in digital tools/uses (65.7%)."

It is also worth noting that, overall, the CnFS offer more services on an individual basis (one-to-one support, drop-in sessions, individual introduction to computers/digital uses, for a total of 60%) than on a group basis (group workshops on basic skills, digital uses or training for the general public - for a total of 30%).

In addition,"reception spaces and configurations give an idea of how the public are received during these services: in 96% of cases, users are received in a seated position, in dedicated or enclosed spaces for two-thirds. This is a clear departure from the all-purpose "reception desk" model typical of public services, where users and agents often stand around connection terminals.

Finally, it should be noted that the multiplicity of types of intervention is of great interest to advisors: 84% of them consider it to be interesting, while the difficulty of managing it and the possible frustration it may generate are rated low (33% and 18% respectively)".

6-Territorial dimension

Local immersion: encouraging results

The sample we surveyed shows that"almost half of all advisors say they are aware of a local strategy, although we have no information on the actual existence of a territorial strategy for all advisors. And just over half (55.9%) of advisors have met all the teams in their main area of operation".

The frequency of exchanges with external players is indicative of an emerging community of professionals.

In the first few months of taking up their posts,"the CnFSs interviewed have few exchanges with outside players. "Once a month" or "never" is the majority response for all the players mentioned. The only exception is exchanges between CnFS: 32% of respondents have exchanges "once or several times a day" (including 19% several times a day); 32% "once or several times a week"". These results testify to the creation of a real community of professionals, directly linked to the way the system has been deployed (community tools available, local gatherings, etc.).

In addition, 16% of respondents say they have exchanges "one or more times a day" with France service agents, while the same proportion say they have exchanges "one or more times a day" with social workers.

"The fact that we're located on the premises of certain structures (EFS, town hall reception area bringing together all services, including social services, etc.), greatly facilitates exchanges, referral relationships and the inter-knowledge of players."

7-Audiences

At this stage, the public are autonomous when it comes to their visit

In the first few months when the CnFSs took up their posts,"the arrival of users was mainly the result of an autonomous movement: they mainly came on their own because they had heard about the intervention or because they already knew about the place, and/or had been in contact with another department of the structure. From this point of view, the counsellors' offer first captured audiences who had needs, knew about the offer and were able to identify the structure or already knew about it".

The authors point out that"these results must no doubt be read in the light of the distribution of reception structures, which are mostly local authorities and/or structures (communes, social centers, CCAS/CIAS, community of communes), which were able to communicate the existence of their new offer directly to their public. The self-prescription score (i.e., the public's autonomous decision to visit the center) indicates a successful local communication campaign and a strong need on the part of the population, who were able to identify the offer. The question of "non-user" audiences, who are more invisible or need to be sought out, will undoubtedly arise over time".

To do what?

According to the advisors we interviewed,"it's first and foremost to for support with digital tools (8.4/10) that people come to the service - which is consistent with the main mode of intervention, which, as mentioned above, is individual support; in this respect, the service on offer corresponds to the public's demand, or conversely, the structures have adapted to the public's demands. Requests for support relate more to tools than to procedures, such as routine internet procedures (6.42), or administrative procedures (7.59). Having training on digital tools comes in second place among "thematic" items (7.89). Other types of request (data security, hardware access) score comparatively lower".

The survey also reveals that "the reinsurance dimension comes in second place. This item, which refers to a psychosocial dimension distinct from the other proposed items, attests to a feeling of anxiety, or helplessness, when faced with digital tools and/or the steps to be taken.

This dimension, which was very much in evidence in all our survey sites (past and present), refers both to the challenges of de-dramatizing digital technology, and to the difficulties inherent in administrative procedures.

When asked about the main demands of the public in relation to the three CnFS objectives, advisors believe that the public is primarily looking for "everyday digital" support (82/100 agreement) - with the lowest standard deviation, i.e. the strongest and most consistent response - ahead of increasing digital skills (76/100 agreement) and help with administrative procedures (68/100 agreement). However, support for day-to-day procedures on the Internet scored almost as high as support for administrative procedures and even information on administrative procedures - the size of the standard deviation on this last item suggests highly segmented positions according to respondents and intervention contexts".

Which audiences?

The CnFSs surveyed report that"the elderly are the primary audience. There is a significant difference with the other types of public offered, and the lowest standard deviation: it is therefore the majority public for the advisors who responded".

The authors of the report point out that"this result is in line with the majority of findings in the field of digital mediation: it is traditionally the elderly who are most in demand for digital mediation, and in particular for workshops (introductory or learning). This preeminence of the elderly may in turn explain the previous results: this public is less likely to have immediate administrative problems - not necessarily what motivates the visit - than a need for support in basic digital uses, and correlatively a need for reassurance. What's more, statistically speaking, the elderly have fewer administrative formalities to deal with than people in precarious employment. Last but not least, their available time corresponds to traditional opening hours (office hours)".

What's more,"the results we've gathered suggest a kind of "majority profile", made up of older people who have heard of the offer, or who used to frequent the structure (town halls, for example, which account for over 20% of public structures), come to be supported in their use of digital tools and to be reassured, or even for some of them to undergo basic skills training. The administrative dimension, important though it is, does not come first, which may be linked to the lower eligibility for social rights of this particular age group".

Few problems meeting audience demands

The survey reveals that"despite certain shortcomings in initial training, CnFS respondents report few difficulties in meeting the demands of their audiences A score of 72 out of 100 was obtained for the ability to respond to requests. In fact, the demands of the public correspond to a large extent to the CnFS's idea of what they want (75/100). Difficulties, when they exist, are mainly due to requests that do not fall within the CnFS's field of intervention (6.79/10), and to overly complex administrative procedures (6.04). The CnFS declare that they have encountered few limitations in their support: the proposed items (question of time, unavailability of interface, IT problems) score very low (degree of agreement between 3.2/10 and 4.2/10)".

1-Methodology

The choice of a qualitative approach was intended to provide a detailed understanding of how the system was set up, the rationale behind it, its effects in terms of action methods and territorial dynamics, the players involved, and so on.

Based on a grid of criteria, five areas were selected, offering a variety of contexts for analysis:

• Territory A, where the Conseil départemental has recruited the vast majority of CnFS (21 out of the 28 initially approved by the scheme's selection committee).
• Territory B, which appeared comparatively less "advanced" than the others in terms of developing a digital inclusion strategy.
• Territory C, which, in addition to its very dense urban character marked by high indicators of precariousness, has signed a preliminary agreement in principle (APP) at the initiative of the Préfecture de département, enabling it to guarantee a quota of 80 CnFS after publication of the AMI (Call for Expressions of Interest) for the scheme.
• The D territory, because of its institutional status as a metropolitan authority, but also in view of the recent change of executive.
• Territory E, conceived as a "mirror" territory of territory A, given the absence of the Conseil départemental in the response to the AMI, and the multiplicity of applications from communes and associations.

Survey periods: exploratory phase: October 2021 - January 2022; 1st wave: March - July 2022; 2nd wave (to come): 2nd quarter 2023.

2-Landing the AMI in the five territories

This section reports on how the AMI "landed" at the " macro " level (Department or Metropolis). Questions focused on the initial phases of the scheme: awareness of the AMI, organization of a response, coordination bodies set up, exchanges with the Banque des Territoires (scheme operator) and the ANCT, validation of the number of CnFS, etc.

Territory A: a natural leader for the Conseil départemental

In territory A, the AMI is taking place in a department that is highly structured in terms of digital inclusion. For many years now, the departmental council has been implementing a territorial strategy covering the whole of the area, with digital mediators sharing a certain number of commune communities, and a dedicated department within the local authority. The network of players has already been set up, and there is a high level of inter-knowledge and working habits (Préfecture, Département, communities of communes). It is also noteworthy that the Prefecture has a precise vision of what the CnFS must not do: they are not France Services agents. The agglomeration present in the département appears to be more of a novice on the subject: the political choice not to place itself under the umbrella of coordination by the Département has led the local authority to shift its digital strategy, hitherto essentially focused on smart cities, towards digital uses and support. In this region, 3 local authorities account for almost all of the department's CnFS.

Territory B: an uncoordinated area

In region B, the AMI is taking place in an unprepared area and environment, with no driving force to disseminate information, encourage local authorities and structures to respond, or organize coordination. The structures that applied had heard about it through their respective networks; given the low number of applications, and the Prefecture's lack of investment in the subject, no selection had to be made. The combination of the AMI and the diagnostic process seems to have encouraged the Département to take on the role of coordinator of a department-wide digital inclusion policy.

Territory C: managed by the prefecture

In Territory C, the AMI has arrived in an area that has been deeply marked by the COVID-19 period and its social effects. The area's needs are recognized as "enormous". Having already made digital inclusion a priority area of intervention (by earmarking budgets, etc.), the Préfecture (in the person of the Préfète déléguée) took the initiative of organizing the territorial response between players; the signing of an APP thus made it possible to guarantee a quota of CnFS with the ANCT (80), and to commit the territory's players to organizing themselves to best respond to the scheme. The Prefecture places the EPTs in a position of territorial coordination and leadership, entrusting them with an intermediary role in the work to be carried out on the distribution keys for CnFS applications on their territorial scale. Although, or because, the Conseil départemental is already involved in the issue of digital inclusion, it does not take on the role of lead partner, but rather complements the requests of the EPTs.

Territory D: metropolitan coordination

In territory D, the publication of the AMI comes at a time when the local authority has made digital inclusion a key part of its digital strategy. The theme benefits from strong political support and the means to develop a network of digital inclusion players. It naturally acts as a "leader" to organize the response of players, particularly cities, and ensure a good territorial distribution of CnFS requests across its territory. Given the time constraints involved in responding to the AMI, and the financial constraints weighing on local authorities, the Metropole recruits, through a public interest group, 15 CnFS for 10 communes. The Prefecture is not very active at this territorial level, and is concentrating on the department and on linking the CnFS with the Espaces France Service (EFS) in the department.

Territory E: prefectoral territorial consultation

In territory E, the Prefecture played an active role in informing local authorities and acting as a "moderator" between ANCT (and in particular the "platform") and the authorities, as soon as it received the circular announcing the AMI. From the outset, the Prefecture identified the AMI as complementary to its EFS deployment policy. However, there are no coordinating players at departmental level. The Département, which developed a digital inclusion network in 2017, is not a member of the scheme, and stays out of the meetings organized by the Prefecture. Territory E thus has the particularity of essentially having structures with a single CnFS, with a large number of CnFS recruited by communes, and 11 CnFS intervening in EFSs."

The emergence of coordinators

The survey reveals that"three of the five territories surveyed are seeing the emergence of coordinators".

More specifically,"in two cases, these leaders are already strongly committed to the subject of digital inclusion: in a very operational way (positions of mediators and digital advisors) and for a long time on territory A (Strategy 2021-2027), in a more recent way on territory D with a strong development of tools (website, cartography, orientation kit), an investment (project managers) in the animation of a network. For these two local authorities, the AMI is part of a kind of continuity: it offers the opportunity to change scale, gives weight and legitimizes its position as a central player on the issue, and increases its resources to achieve the objectives set out in its digital emancipation strategy".

Furthermore,"in the 3rd territory (C), the emergence of coordination bodies is not the result of the same process. It's not a case of a player taking matters into his or her own hands (territory D), or responding to a need expressed by local players (territory A), but the initiative of the Prefecture, which is committed to piloting the response to the AMI in view of the needs identified in its territory, and provides a referent "project manager" who becomes the contact for all players at local level: she is responsible for presenting and supporting the project, identifying the players involved, running meetings, answering questions from local authorities, smoothing relations with the State, etc. As in the other two territories, the Prefecture does not play a coordinating role, which it "delegates" to the EPTs. The EPTs do not benefit from any form of funding for this delegation of coordination and leadership at their territorial level, but they do have the possibility of applying for a coordination position within the framework of the AMI".

Different coordination "contracts

The emergence of coordinators has been the subject of contractual approaches. In fact,"in territory A, while the Conseil départemental is responsible for coordination from an administrative point of view (management of contracts, coordination, provision of human resources, etc.), the funding of the positions is shared equally with the communities of communes; the administrative residence of the CnFSs is located in the communities of communes, and the CnFSs have a hierarchical link with a referent in the communities of communes, in addition to the "technical" referent provided by the Département (a former digital mediator).

On territory D, the Métropole takes full responsibility for the CnFS positions held by a GIP, made available to the communes in cooperation/partnership with them (generally the town's integration officers); the CnFS are under the hierarchical control of the GIP, and have a functional link with a manager in their commune. The Metropole dedicates one half-time CnFS to coordinating all the CnFS in the Metropole.

The EPT of territory C performs the coordination function assigned to it by the prefecture at intercommunal level, but it is the communes that finance and recruit their CnFS. The EPT has nevertheless obtained a CnFS position for coordination. The EPT has no hierarchical or functional link with the communes' CnFS".

Multiple profit-sharing sequences

Interestingly, the survey highlights the fact that"one of the remarkable aspects of the emergence of coordinators is thatit generates a great deal of interest among local players, particularly on and around the issue of CnFS distribution s: identification and mobilization of players, meetings, discussion of the relevance of distribution, questioning of local needs, use of tools to objectify local data, drafting of project sheets, formalization of objectives, etc.".

On the other hand,"in areas where there is no coordinating body, the situation is very different. In territory B, the publication of the AMI has triggered local mobilization, particularly at the level of the Conseil départemental, which is now organizing itself to take the lead on the theme of digital inclusion. In territory E, the question of coordination remains unresolved. At the time of our survey, the departmental council was still in the background, and there were few exchanges with the players involved in the scheme. The prefecture, which has been active in terms of information, does not seem to want to play a role beyond responding to the AMI. At the time of our survey, the regional hub (cf. Hub territoriaux pour un numérique inclusif) had initiated an initial gathering of CnFSs and digital mediators by department, to share their practices. Over time, we'll have to check whether these actions foreshadow a form of coordination on the part of the Hub, or whether they enable certain coordinating players to emerge".

3-The system as experienced by recruiting organizations

The aim of this section is to report on how the recruiting organizations experienced the scheme, from the moment they became aware of the AMI, through to the recruitment and training phase. This is a meso level, taking the territorial approach down a notch, so to speak, compared with the previous section. There are three types of player in this section:

• Coordinating actors who have recruited CnFS (Metropole of territory D, Departmental Council of territory A, EPT of territory C);
• Structures that have recruited CnFS (communes, social centers, associations, communities of communes, CCAS, etc.);
• And finally, structures hosting a CnFS who has been recruited by a coordinating player (communauté de communes and communes de l'Agglomération in territory A, commune de la Métropole in territory C).

Significant differences between recruiting organizations

"In Territoire A, the structures were already involved and interested in the issue of digital inclusion. There was a fairly homogeneous deployment pattern across the communities of communes that joined the scheme under the aegis of the Conseil départemental: both in terms of the rules applied (administrative residence of the CnFS, technical referent), and in the conception of the CnFS's missions. In Territoire B, on the other hand, we find a wide variety of players, each with their own interpretation of the CnFS position, and recruiting for their own needs, or those of their structure, when they are identified.

On the 2 sites in Territory D, the structures surveyed already had a person in charge of the issue of digital inclusion, in the broadest sense of the term: a professional positioned more specifically on issues linked to job-seeking in the commune; a volunteer, running workshops at the request of members, in the Social Center.

In territory E, the recruiting organizations include, on the one hand, accredited structures, into which the CnFS are integrated, with the challenge of sharing roles with the France service agents. On the other hand, there are associative structures that have their own very local issues and focus on their target groups. Overall, it is notable that the recruiting organizations think of the role of their CnFS in terms of their structures and their audiences; even if, as will be discussed below, the notion of need in fact refers to different bodies.

Finally, in area C, we find two very different towns: the first has a structured service and can easily and quickly integrate the system into its local strategy; the second uses the system to initiate internal reflection and implement actions in municipal facilities".

Cascading coordination around the question of distribution keys

Interestingly, here again, the generation of multiple profit-sharing sequences in territories with a coordinating player at departmental level "is confirmed and cascaded when examined at the meso level.".

More specifically,"in area A, negotiations on the distribution keys for each community of communes, orchestrated by the Conseil départemental (macro level), are followed at the level of the communities of communes surveyed, by other meetings bringing together the players in the area concerned (communes, media libraries, social centers, etc.). The aim of these meetings is to question stakeholders about their needs, in order to allocate the CnFS presence to the various communes making up the community as accurately as possible. They help to formalize and make visible the territory's needs (proposals for mapping, lists, etc.), and can give rise to explanations of interventions or adjustments between structures (complementarities). However, the discussion of distribution keys at inter-municipal level appears to be governed by an often "accounting" logic: each commune, which in fact participates in the financing of the positions (since they contribute to the inter-municipal budget), tends to demand, as a matter of principle, a position or the maximum amount of intervention time in its commune.

In view of the "coordination contract", the situation is different in territory C. The local authority has begun work on distribution keys, but this has been based more on figures (those available for QPV residents), in the absence of detailed feedback from towns on their existing offer of digital support in their commune (plans to add to the Hub's existing mapping).) On the other hand, the formal recognition of the role of digital mission leader at inter-municipal level has given rise to a fairly dense program of meetings, in a variety of formats: webinars, distribution of tools, seminars to reflect on overall communication on the scheme, France Service training programs, meetings between CnFSs, etc.

The same applies to Territoire D, where a number of meetings have been scheduled: a territorial meeting to launch the AMI process with local structures, a territorial meeting following submission of the project to ANCT, a pre-recruitment forum, Network Forum No. 1, an inter-employer structure meeting, an Inter-CnFS meeting, Inter-employer structure meeting No. 2, Inter-CnFS meeting No. 2, etc".

A triple instantiation of the notion of needs

In the interviews we conducted with facilities, we also found a recurring reference to the notion of needs, which can be broken down into 3 different categories:

• "The needs of the territories" (mainly municipalities) in terms of time spent with a CnFS;
• "The needs of a community's internal services";
• "Audience needs".

In all territories with a coordinator, needs are discussed as part of the distribution keys, in order to survey towns/communes on their needs in terms of CnFS: both to calibrate the number of CnFS requested at local authority level, and to ensure a balanced distribution across CCs based on a volume of CnFS defined by the ANCT.

In some cases, the more specific aim of questioning the needs of local authorities may be to define the scope of CnFS interventions.

Some uses for territorial diagnostic tools

A few territories have used tools to estimate more precisely, or on an objective basis, the population's needs in terms of digital support. Only Metropole Territoire D used the digital fragility index, which is available nationally; EPT Territoire C used QPV figures to weight the calculation of CnFS distribution by commune. Territoire A's CD, for its part, used its own mapping of structures and mediation facilities (media libraries, social centers, etc.).

Furthermore, the survey shows that"in one of the towns in Territoire C, the town regularly makes questionnaires available to residents in various municipal facilities (media libraries, community centers) to gauge their needs. The project manager assigned to support the CnFS has noticed that the workshops and/or drop-in centers set up have left out a whole section of the public: young people. From this point of view, the CnFS actions are monitored, and related to the issues and priorities set out in the local strategy; it should be remembered that this commune has a project manager position that includes monitoring of the digital inclusion approach, and that this is part of a wider project to improve the quality of service to users. Prior to the publication of the AMI, another commune in Territoire A carried out a diagnosis of the digital issue, which showed that the commune was lagging behind in terms of digital support, which prompted it to apply for the scheme".

Three types of ownership

The data gathered in the course of the survey led to the identification of"3 main types of appropriation of the system: they are not mutually exclusive, and some territories pursue several logics simultaneously, translating the system into mixed modes. These types allow us to identify the ways in which territories use and engage with the system. They also mark a way for players to situate it and themselves in a temporal dimension and perspective: on the one hand, because players conceive the system differently over time; on the other hand, because the system fits differently into the temporal development of a local digital strategy or the achievement of digital inclusion objectives in their structure and sometimes in the territory".

1) A mechanism for deploying and scaling up, when the mechanism is embedded in a prior, formalized strategy: prior preparation and identification of objectives, deployment of operational actions, and/or tooling up of a digital inclusion approach, etc.

2) A tool for testing and experimentation. In a number of areas, generally less prepared or advanced in terms of digital inclusion, the system appears to be more experimental in nature, making it possible to commit to the issue and test it within the organization. It's not so much a response to the needs of local residents as a way of engaging the organization (usually a local authority) on the subject of digital inclusion. The idea is to "see what happens". In some cases, the continuation of the action seems strongly conditional on the "success" of the scheme.

3) An opportunity. Finally, for associative structures in particular, the scheme clearly appears as an opportunity. Either the broad function of digital mediation was already being performed (generally by a volunteer), and the scheme offers a funding opportunity. Or the scheme makes it possible to recognize the need to support their audiences in digital matters, because it offers the possibility of remuneration and training for a dedicated person. This opportunity effect also applies to certain local authorities, in particular communes.

Training

In line with the results of the quantitative survey, the interviews revealed that training was a poor enrolment tool for both the recruiting organizations and the CnFSs, leading to a number of exits among the latter.

A number of factors could explain the difficulties in producing a standard training model that would satisfy everyone in all the possible variations of a "CnFS profession", which is in fact still in the process of emerging and being constituted: the diversity of recruitment profiles for advisors, and of their digital knowledge and skills; but also the diversity of expectations among those recruited, with regard to the content of this training; or even the variety of contexts of intervention and definition of CnFS missions locally. But this hypothesis, based on the opposition between the standard model and the diversity of interventions and profiles, does not seem to be supported by what the CnFS say about the training's shortcomings, since they clearly and unanimously identify the missing dimensions, which would then form a central part of their interventions.

4 - How the CnFS see their work

The vast majority of CnFS employees we met appreciate the work they do: they find that it's what they applied for, a dimension of contact and help for people with digital difficulties.

Between social usefulness and lack of recognition

In region B, the CnFS we met, and in particular those who had worked in commercial services, expressed a certain satisfaction with their work, combined with a sense of social usefulness that contrasts with what they used to do (verbatims taken from the survey):

" I had one person with a mutual insurance company, who had an option that had to be removed from his subscription. Someone who was with EDF, paying 87 euros a month. All these fragile people. I know, because when I was in sales, all my targets were the poorest people. So it's interesting to be able to defend them. (CnFS, local authority).

" I heard about it on the M6 news [about CnFS recruitment] and applied on the website. I thought it would be interesting, I'd worked in telephony, in customer service, and my job wasn't to provide information, it was to sell, whether or not people understood what they'd just bought. I said to myself that this was exactly what was missing, and with the first confinement, you could see that all the people who weren't used to going on the internet, who found themselves obliged to go there. I was offered a permanent contract. But I preferred this job. I saw so many questions from people, and we were told not to answer them, to concentrate on selling ". (CnFS community).

The same sentiment can be found in one of the communes in Territoire C, where one of the CnFSs, who had previously worked for a computer assistance and troubleshooting telephone platform, saw in the position the opportunity to move away from a commercial dimension, and to meet the public to be supported. For all the CnFS interviewees, the helping dimension was a positive factor in their decision to take up the job. As C :

" We're people who want to help others, I mean, people who do this job, it's not to make money, it's not that we want to have a great career, it's to help others ". (CnFS, Territory C)

Shortly after taking up their new posts, some CnFS are already expressing a form of attachment to their "profession" and calling for it to be supported, in view of the needs it meets:

" CnFS 1: For all the people we support, it's a question of, you're here in two years, but what about after that? And after that, if it can continue, that would be great, because I love my job.

CnFS 2: Me too, and if it wasn't for this job, I think I'd leave (department), it's the only job that keeps me here.

CnFS 1: I think it's a job that can't be stopped. People are lost, if only because of operating system updates. Interfaces change ".

While all the CnFS feel that the position they occupy corresponds to a real need, some consider that the work they do is not sufficiently recognized, particularly in financial terms: salary recognition conditions are sometimes deemed unsatisfactory.

" In my opinion, the scheme should be made permanent because there are needs. Personally, I'd like to continue after two years, but only if the management is better and the salary conditions are different. For me, it's something I like because I enjoy the contact with users ". (CnFS, Community Territory A).