Issue and Political Background
OVERVIEW
Why is federal
legislation necessary to bridge the digital divide? Research
shows that the gap between
the
proportions of different
communities that have access to computers and the know-how of
information technology is widening over time.
Further, the quality of technological access and training is also
widening between these communities. These disparities fall hardest along
racial, ethnic, and income lines with poor and racial minorities having
the least amount of access to computers and the Internet (see Appendix
A). The Digital Bridge
Trust Fund Act seeks to close these gaps by providing federal funding
for community technology centers that will:
1) expand access to computers and the Internet in underserved
rural, urban and Native American areas; and 2) provide the training
necessary to effectively utilize computer technology.
The stakes are high.
The use of technology—particularly the Internet—has become
a necessity for education, employment and information dissemination.
As the gap between the technological “haves” and
“have-nots” continues to widen, more and more people will lose out
on jobs, economic development and civic participation.
By providing free access to computers and the Internet, community
access centers have the ability to provide minority groups, lower
income, and less educated individuals with the same information tools as
other connected Americans.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Commerce Department published its first report detailing
disparities in computer and modem ownership.
By early 1996, the term “digital divide” had became part of
the lexicon. The first aspect of the divide to be addressed in the
political arena concerned providing Internet access in public schools.
During the Presidential election, President Clinton and Vice
President Gore campaigned for a program that would subsidize school and
library Internet access. This
program, now known as E-rate, was signed into law as part of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 which preserved universal service.
Universal Service
The concept of universal service is relevant to the issue of the
digital divide in that universal service is a telecommunications policy
of complex phone subsidies that work to ensure all households have
access to affordable telephone service. The policy has been in place
since the 1950’s. In 1996, Congress expanded the goal of this program
to cover advances in telecommunications and information technologies,
and required "reasonable comparability" of services and rates
between rural and urban areas. The
program includes four parts: 1)
subsidies for schools and libraries; 2) subsidized phone service for
low-income Americans; 3) funding to promote rural telemedicine via the
Internet; and 4) subsidized phone service for Americans living in rural
and isolated areas.
The E-rate program
The E-rate program requires telecommunications carriers to provide,
upon request by an eligible school or library, commercially available
telecommunications services at a discounted rate. Discounts range from
20 to 90 percent, with the highest discounts accruing to the most
economically or geographically disadvantaged schools and libraries.
According to figures from the Clinton Administration, the E-rate program
is utilized by more than 80 percent of schools and provides Internet
access for 30 million children in more than one million classrooms and
47,000 schools and libraries.
A bill has been introduced in the 106th Congress that
would eliminate the E-rate program. The bill, HR 692, is currently in committee and is sponsored
by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and co-sponsored by 38
Republicans.
Since December 1999, the Clinton Administration has made closing the
digital divide a national priority through several administrative
initiatives and budget proposals (see Appendix B). Under his lead, Democrats in the House and Senate have
introduced a wide-range of bills on the digital divide.
This year alone, twenty-two bills have been introduced in the
House or the Senate. However,
this flurry of activity does not mean there is strong bi-partisan
support for federally funded programs that subsidize computer access.
In fact, there are major differences in opinion on how the
government should approach the problem of the digital divide.
POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Due to the newness of the “digital divide” issue, pinpointing
supporters and opponents of programs aimed at narrowing the divide is
particularly difficult. There
is far from a consensus among policy-makers, think-tanks, civil rights
groups and politicians—although traditional differences between the
Republican and Democratic Party hold true (with Republicans preferring
private market/free market solutions and Democrats preferring federally
funded programs to help solve social inequalities).
That being said, the key issues in the debate tend to concern the
role of government in bridging the divide, the extent or existence of
the problem, and the types of policies necessary to correct the problem.
Support
and Opposition
Supporters
·
The Clinton Administration
·
Public Interest Advocates
·
Members of Congress from the Democratic Party led by:
Representative
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Representative
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Representative
John
Dingell (D-MI)
Senate
Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)
·
The Democratic party in general
·
National Urban League
·
Congressional Black Congress
·
Civil Rights Groups
·
Community Based Organizations
Opponents
·
Republican Congressmembers
·
The Republican party in general
·
Conservative think-tanks, including the Cato Institute and the
Heritage Foundation
Major Issues to Be Addressed
The following summaries are political generalizations (the lines are
not so easily defined) of the arguments most cited against federal
initiatives such as the Digital Bridge Trust Fund.
The Opponents’ Perspective
·
“Divide”
is an Exaggeration: Access
to the Internet is increasing in leaps and bounds.
Over the last 5 years, the ‘digital divide’ has narrowed (not
widened), and increasingly the demography of Internet users is
reflecting more and more the American population. Many proponents of
this view cite that computer and Internet access has spread much more
quickly than other similar technological advances such as televisions
and radio. Another argument used to portray the divide as a ‘sham’
is the NTIA 1999 report that showed that between 1994 and 1998 computer
ownership among blacks increased by 125%, while it increased only 72%
among whites. Proponents of this view are generally considered
politically conservative and include the Cato Institute, the Heritage
Foundation and the Information Technology Association of America.
·
Market will Correct:
Over time the market will correct any divide (with competition,
and hence price reduction) as broadband infrastructure is put in place
and costs become even lower. Therefore, policies should focus on aiding
free market practices and reducing regulatory hurdles that impede
private investment in broadband deployment.
Part of the free market argument points to the fact that the
private market is already doing a good job of getting lower priced
products to the market, that there are many free Internet services and
that many PCs are now lower in cost than TVs. “If Americans really
want a personal computer and access to the Internet, they can obtain
them at very low cost” (Theirer, fellow at Heritage Foundation).
Proponents of this view tend to be conservative and/or Republican and
include the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
·
Offline by
Choice: Many
who fall on the disadvantaged side of the digital divide do so by choice
in the same way that many choose not to have a TV in their house. This
argument is mentioned in an Heritage Foundation policy brief.
·
Education is
the Real Issue: Education
is at the root of digital divide. Proponents of this view cite the
NTIA’s report that those with a college degree or higher are over
eight times more likely to have a computer than the least educated and
nearly sixteen times more likely to have home Internet access.
Instead of focusing on providing the poor with computers,
policies should focus on improving education (through school-choice
policies such as vouchers). Proponents of this view are the Heritage Foundation and
Daniel Akst of the Wall Street Journal.
Some civil rights groups mention education as part of a broader
argument that the digital divide is indicative of deeper
structural/social problems that include discrimination (particularly in
regards to infrastructure development in low-income communities).
Addressing the Issues
To ensure that the Community Technology Centers program receives
wide-spread gubernatorial support, (the majority of governors are
Republican) it is essential that the program design address the
following issues:
·
Access is only
the starting point: Policies
to increase access need to remember that ‘access’ is not an end in
and of itself. In this
sense, programs that address these needs can be viewed as one of many in
a broader policy objective to reduce social isolation, reduce poverty
and improve socioeconomic mobility.
In order to effectively bridge the digital divide, programs that
serve to increase access must include computer training not only on how
to use software or the web, but on how these technologies are relevant
to the user’s life (ie., job skills, employment, information
gathering, civic participation, etc.)
·
Regulatory
ease: The
program must be able to accomplish the goals of improving access in
rural and urban areas with as little administrative burden on the states
as possible.
·
Community
centers are cost-effective:
Research suggests that community access points are a
cost-effective solution, since Americans without home Internet access
are almost twice as likely to use public facilities than those with. The program’s administrators need to outline the key
benefits of opening community technology centers in underserved areas.
AREAS OF DISCRETION
While the Digital Bridge Trust establishes a Board of Trustees made
up of 11 members from five different federal government departments, the
law does not specify a funding structure, set eligibility
criteria or provide mechanisms for oversight and enforcement.
However, the Board is responsible for preparing and submitting an annual
report to the President and Congress which entails that some level of
federal oversight will be necessary.
In implementing the Community Technology Centers program, the
challenge will then be to provide the states’ programmatic flexibility while allowing for some amount of federal oversight and
programmatic guidelines. The
key issues to be resolved are outlined below.
Funding Structure
The current trend in Congress is toward
using block grants to implement federal programs.
The advantage of block grants is that they allow for more local
flexibility to tailor programmatic needs to their populations. The key
disadvantage is that they make enforcement and oversight more difficult.
No matter what funding structure is implemented (i.e., block
grant to states, federal allocation directly to organizations, or some
other scheme) there are key questions to be resolved:
1.
Will there be a matching requirement?
For example, the Department of
Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program (TIIAP) funds Computer Access Centers by providing
matching grants to a wide range of nonprofit organizations including
schools, libraries, hospitals, public safety entities and state and
local governments.
(See Appendix B and C
for more details.)
2.
Who will cover the administrative costs involved if state-based
implementation is chosen? One
option is to identify a certain amount of the award to be used for
administrative costs.
3.
The law also requires that the funds be allocated in a way that
rural and urban areas, and Native Americans, are each fairly served.
What parameters will be establish to ensure fairness?
How will technological barriers on Native American reservations
and rural communities (i.e., no phone lines or electricity) affect the
ability to open computer access centers?
Eligibility Decisions
1.
What should be the requirements for eligibility?
For example, should only certain types of organizations such as
schools and non-profit organizations be eligible for the program funds?
Should for-profit businesses be allowed to apply for the funds?
For example, schools are not eligible
for funding under the Department of Education’s Community Technology
Centers program (although the centers may be located at schools if they
are dedicated to broad community use.) Instead, local and state
education agencies are encouraged to apply.
(See appendix C for complete details on the
program.)
2.
What kinds of activities can the funds be used for?
Are there any restrictions? Is there a programmatic focus
required, such as computer literacy or career skills development?
3.
Should the program seek collaboration with existing partnerships
or function independently?
There
are several large private/public ventures aimed at increasing access to
computer technologies in underserved communities.
For example, PowerUp is a partnership of more than a dozen
nonprofit organization and major corporations (including AOL) that have
joined together open access centers in schools and community centers
around the country. The states of Virginia and Illinois have allocated
money to build PowerUp sites.
Another possibility may be to collaborate
with a membership organization, such as The Community Technology
Centers’ Network (CTCNet), that acts as a resource for non-profit and
community-based organizations seeking to establish community technology
centers. CTCNet represents
250 affiliates with locations in 33 states and has consulted with HUD on
its Neighborhood Network program.
Oversight
1.
What federal agency should be responsible for overseeing the
implementation of this program? The
Office of Education Technology seems logical, but are there others that
may be more suitable?
2.
What kinds of bodies will need to be established to oversee local
implementation? For
example, should each State be required to establish a Community
Technology Centers task force?
Enforcement
1.
What will be the requirements for grant recipients to be in
compliance with the programmatic guidelines?
What programmatic measures will signal that goals are being met?
The Department of Commerce TIIAP program
utilized site visits to increase the level of its onsite grants
monitoring.
2.
Should there be any penalties for non-compliance or misuse of
funds?
3.
What will be the States’ or grantees reporting requirements?
What information will be collected?
The
Department of Commerce TIIAP program requires applicants to describe the
design of the project’s evaluation, a plan for implementing the
evaluation and the resources to be allocated to the evaluation.
The design has to address the methodological approach, how the
data will be collected, how the data will be analyzed and how the
findings with be reported and disseminated. The evaluation had to be linked to
problems, solutions and outcomes identified in the proposal.
Appendix
A
KEY STATISTICS ON THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE
Key Disparities in Access
and Ownership:
Research shows that the
digital divide closely parallels socioeconomic cleavages, most notably:
·
From 1997 to 1998, the gap for home Internet access between White
and Black households grew by 37.7%, while from 1994 to 1998 the gap for
computer ownership widened by 39.2%.
·
While 95.7% of White households have a telephone, Black
households lag behind at 87.8%, and rural Native American households
come in last at 76.4%.
·
Rural Native American households’ access to computers (26.8%)
and Internet (18.9%) lag behind the national averages of 42.1% and
26.2%.
·
Hispanic households are roughly half as likely to own a computer
as white households, and nearly 2.5 times less likely to use the
Internet.
·
Between 1997 and 1998, the White/Hispanic gap for Internet access
widened by 37.6%. From 1994
to 1998, the computer ownership gap widened by 42.6%.
·
Urban households earning incomes over $75,000 are twenty times
more likely to have home Internet access than rural households at the
lowest income levels.
·
Between 1997 and 1998, the gap for home Internet access between
those at the highest and lowest income levels widened by 29%.
·
At home, those with a college degree or higher are over eight
times more likely to have a computer than the least educated, and nearly
sixteen times more likely to have home Internet access.
Rural Differences:
·
At almost every income level, those households in rural areas are
less likely to own computers than households in urban or central city
areas.
·
At every income level, households in rural areas are
significantly less likely, sometimes half as likely, to have home
Internet access than those in urban or central city areas.
·
Black households in rural areas are 1/3 less likely to own a
computer than the average U.S. Black household, and are 2/5 less likely
to access the Internet than the average U.S. Black household.
Access points:
·
22.2% of Americans have Internet access from their homes, while
17.0% use the Internet outside the home. Nearly one-third (32.7%) use
the Internet from my location (at home and/or outside the home.
·
People without home computers are almost 1.5 times more likely
than home computer owners to obtain outside Internet access through
public libraries or community centers.
·
More than half
(56.3%) of Americans who use the Internet outside the home access it
from work.
·
The second most popular point of access outside the home is the
Kindergarten-12th grade school (21.8%).
·
For those accessing the Internet outside home, 8.2% of Americans
use public libraries as an access point.
Internet Usage
Trends:
·
Of those accessing the Internet at home, 77.9% use it to e-mail;
of that group, 93.6% use E-mail to communicate with family and friends.
·
A majority of home users (59.8%) use the Internet for information
searches.
·
Over half of unemployed persons (53.9%) using the Internet at
home are searching for jobs online. Outside the home, the same group is
three times more likely to do an Internet job search than the national
average (29.8% vs. 8.5%).
·
Pursuing online courses and school research is equally popular
inside and outside the home (36.1% and 38.8%, respectively).
·
Outside the home, more than 65% of those making under $25,000 use
e-mail to communicate with family and friends; that rate drops at higher
incomes.
·
Using the Internet at
home for "job-related tasks" is far more common for those
making above $25,000.
Appendix B
Program Examples and Current Initiatives
FEDERAL LEVEL INITIATIVES
Ø
U.S. Department of Agriculture
<www.usda.gov>
Finances
the construction of the telecommunications infrastructure in rural
America.
·
Rural
Utilities Service (RUS): <www.rurdev.usda.gov>
The
Indian Telecom Training Initiative 2000 (ITTI 2000)
– RUS is one of sponsors
Provide
Tribal Government Leaders with information to increase their options for
finding telecommunications service solutions and to make decisions about
telecommunications services for their tribal residents. ITTI 2000 will
bring together Federal representatives, tribal representatives,
telecommunications companies, and emerging technology firms to inform
tribal governments about various facets of telecommunications services
and how different technologies, regulatory rules, and government
programs can be used to benefit tribal communities. ITTI 2000 will also
identify various programs and resources available to tribal residents
and governments to assist their efforts to secure access to and improve
the affordability of telecommunications services on tribal reservations.
·
Distance Learning and Telemedicine:
-
Grant program to
encourage, improve, and make
affordable the use of telecommunications, computer networks and related
technology for rural communities to improve access to educational and/or
medical services.
·
USDA
computer donations
·
Research
on Rural Telecommunications
·
Rural
Task Force
Ø
U.S. Department of Commerce
<www.doc.gov>
·
National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
<www.ntia.doc.gov>
National Telecommunications and
Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) provides matching
grants to a wide range of nonprofit organizations including schools,
libraries, hospitals, public safety entities and state and local
governments, to help them make use of innovative technologies.
A primary purpose is to bring these technologies and their
benefits to inner-city and rural areas, and other groups that have
difficulty assessing the information infrastructure.
Ø
U.S. Department of Education <www.ed.gov>
·
Educational
Technology Programs:
-
Technology Literacy
Challenge Fund: $425 million
in FY2000; $450 million requested for FY2001 (a $25 million increase)
-
Technology Innovation
Challenge Grants: $115
million in FY 1999; $146.2 million in FY 2000
-
Preparing Tomorrow's
Teachers to Use Technology: $75 million in FY99, $75 million in FY2000
-
Learning Anytime
Anywhere Partnerships: $10
million in FY1999, $15 million in FY2000
·
Community
Technology Center Program
<www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/CTC>
$10 million in FY1999, $32.5 million in FY2000
The programs expand access to information
technology and learning services through the creation of computer
learning facilities in low-income communities. The technology at these
centers is used for pre-school preparation, workforce
development, after-school enrichment, and adult and continuing
education. (see
Appendix C for more details)
Ø
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
<www.hud.gov>
·
Neighborhood
Networks
The programs utilize innovative
private/public partnerships to establish computer-based multi-service
centers to help people in public and assisted housing learn critical
computer skills and prepare for 21st century jobs.
Ø
U.S. Department of Labor <www.dol.gov>
·
Corporation
for National Service-Americorps
Digital
Divide funds: School-Based
grants that support efforts to help overcome the digital divide and
provide digital opportunities. $12.5 million is available for the
purpose of supporting AmeriCorps members and Learn and Serve
participants in efforts to overcome the digital divide.
PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS
·
3Com Urban
Challenge: Building Connected Communities
In
July 1999, 3Com, in partnership with The United States Conference of
Mayors, created the Urban Challenge program, an innovative partnership
that rewards forward-thinking cities with $100,000 grants in 3Com
systems and services for technology initiatives designed to improve
residents' lives.
·
PowerUP:
Bridging the Digital Divide
Unique
partnership comprised of more than a dozen nonprofit organizations,
major corporations and federal agencies that have joined together to
launch a major new multimillion dollar initiative to help ensure that
America's underserved young people acquire the skills, experiences and
resources they need to succeed in the digital age. Based in schools and
community centers around the country, PowerUP will provide young people
with access to information on the Internet and will help them develop
additional skills they need to succeed in the 21st century.
·
The NetDay Digital Divide Initiative (NDDI)
Helps
bridge the digital divide in schools in 16 selected low-income
communities and to use those new high-tech schools as models for
replication in other communities across the United States. This program
was launched in spring 1999 with a startup grant from the Department of
Education. This assistance includes resource procurement, management of
community and school relationships and expectations, facilitation of
model school components and the management of data from this laboratory
environment.
OVERVIEW OF RECENT CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS
·
President Clinton
released document on "digital divide" in July 1999.
·
President Clinton
proposed following programs in December 2000:
-
$2 billion over 10 years
in tax incentives to encourage private sector donation of computers,
sponsorship of community technology centers, and technology training for
workers
-
$150 million to help
train all new teachers entering the workforce use technology effectively
in the classroom
-
$100 million to create up
to 1,000 Community Technology Centers in low-income urban and rural
communities
-
$50 million for a
public/private partnership to expand home access to computers and the
Internet for low-income families
-
$45 million to promote
innovative applications of information technology for under-served
communities
-
$25 million to accelerate
private sector deployment of high-speed networks in under-served urban
and rural communities
-
$10 million to prepare
Native Americans for careers in information technology and other
technical fields
Appendix C
PROGRAM UP-CLOSE:
Department of Education Community Technology Centers Program
Purpose:
To
promote the development of model programs that demonstrate the
educational effectiveness of technology in urban and rural areas and economically
distressed communities. The Community Technology Centers provide access to
information technology and related learning services to children and
adults.
Economically
distressed is defined as a city, county, census tract, zip code area(s),
or neighborhood experience economic distress as evidenced by various
means (including Department of Census poverty data, unemployment rates,
and/or reduced and free-lunch counts).
Distribution
of Funds:
The
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education,
awards three-year grants on a competitive basis.
Use of Funds:
Funds may be used for a number of
activities related to center start-up or expansion such as supporting a
center coordinator and staff, acquiring equipment or networking
capabilities, and developing or providing an array of learning services
using the technology. Funding
may be used for renovation, physical changes are permitted that enable a
room, lab or facility to be wired or rewired for computer and Internet
access. Renovations to make
a room or set of rooms suitable for use as
a computer lab are also permitted.
Funds may be used to lease a building or to cover rent. There are
no caps on the amount of grant funds that can be used for
administration.
Eligible
Applicants:
State
and local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and
other public and private nonprofit or for-profit agencies and
organizations.
Matching
Funds Requirement:
Grant
recipients must make available non-Federal contributions in cash or in
kind at the following percentages:
1st
year: 30%; 2nd year: 40%; 3rd year: 50%.
Range
of Awards:
$75,000 to $300,000 each year
Technical
Assistance Workshops:
The
Office of Vocational and Adult Education held technical assistance
workshops to assist applicants in preparing grant applications at the
following locations: Dallas,
Chicago, Brooklyn, Los Angeles.
Competitive
Priorities:
Preference
is given (in the form of extra points in addition to any earned under
the normal selection criteria) to applications that meet one or both of
the competitive priorities:
Priority #1:
Projects that demonstrate substantial community support of, and
commitment to, the establishment or expansion of a community technology
center or centers.
Priority #2:
Projects that use the program funds to establish or expand a
community technology center or centers in an Empowerment Zone, an
Enterprise Community designated by the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development or the US Department of Agriculture.
|