FALLING THROUGH THE NET:

TOWARD DIGITAL INCLUSION

A Report on Americans' Access to Technology Tools

October 2000

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economic and Statistics Administration

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

Washington, DC 20230

The digital economy is moving our Nation toward greater prosperity. Our goal at the Commerce Department is to ensure that all Americans - regardless of age, income, race, ethnicity, disability, or geography - gain access to the technological tools and skills needed in the new economy.

Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion is a key part of the Department's ongoing efforts to promote full participation in the digital economy. It is important for our Nation to measure and analyze how the digital economy is affecting its citizens.

I am pleased that the data in this report show that, overall, our Nation is moving toward full digital inclusion. The number of Americans who are utilizing electronic tools in every aspect of their lives is rapidly increasing. However, a digital divide still remains. The report shows that not everyone is moving at the same speed, and identifies those groups that are progressing more slowly. The report also is rich with insights into how Americans are gaining access to key technologies, and how they are using such tools. With this information, we can better target and enact policies and programs to close the disparities in access to computers and the Internet that still are being experienced by some in our Nation.

I applaud the many public and private sector efforts that are helping Americans achieve greater access to the tools of the digital economy. We are rapidly becoming a digital Nation. We know that to not have access to such tools means to miss out on tremendous economic and educational opportunities. This report shows us that much work is left to be done.

The Commerce Department looks forward to continuing to work with the many public and private sector organizations that are striving to ensure greater digital inclusion for everyone.

Norman Y. Mineta

FALLING THROUGH THE NET:

TOWARD DIGITAL INCLUSION

National Telecommunications Economic and Statistics Administration

and Information Administration

Gregory L. Rohde, Assistant Secretary Robert Shapiro, Under Secretary for

for Communications and Information Economic Affairs

JOINT PROJECT TEAM

for NTIA for ESA

Kelly K. Levy, Associate Administrator, Lee Price, Deputy Under Secretary for

Office of Policy Analysis and Development Economic Affairs

James McConnaughey, Senior Economist Patricia Buckley, Senior Policy Advisor

Wendy Lader, Senior Policy Advisor Sabrina Montes, Economist

Art Brodsky, Director of Communications George McKittrick, Economist

Sandra Laousis, Telecommunications Gwendolyn Flowers, Chief Economist

Policy Analyst

Jeffrey Mayer, Director of Policy Development

JOINT PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS

for NTIA for ESA

Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel Jane Molloy, Director, Office of Policy Analysis

Milton Brown, Deputy Chief Counsel Laurence Campbell, Senior Regulatory Policy Economist

Steve Saleh, Program Officer

Sandra Cooke, Economist

Wayne Ritchie, Management and Program Analyst

Lan Chu, Law Clerk

U.S. Bureau of the Census

Demographic Surveys Division Technologies Management Office Population Division

Ronald R. Tucker Adelle Berlinger Judith Eargle Andrew Stevenson Eric Newburger

Greg Weyland L. Dinah Flores John M. McNeil

Tim J. Marshall Aileen Bennett

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv

PART I: HOUSEHOLD ACCESS TO COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET 1

Overall Household Findings: The Nation Moves Toward Digital Inclusion 2

Digital Inclusion Proceeds Unevenly 2

Geography 4

Income 8

Education 10

Race and Ethnicity 12

Household Type 17

Households With Computers and Internet Access, by State 20

A New Dimension: High Speed Internet Access 23

Non-Internet Households 25

Why Households with Computers Have Never Had Internet Access 26

Why Households with Computers Have Discontinued Internet Access 27

PART II: USE OF THE INTERNET BY INDIVIDUALS 33

Internet Use Among Individuals 36

Income 36

Race and Ethnicity 37

Gender 39

Educational Attainment 40

Age 41

Location of Internet Access 45

Locations of Internet Access Outside the Home 46

Online Activities 47

Online Activities of Home Internet Users 48

Online Activities of Outside the Home Internet Users 49

PART III: INTERNET ACCESS AND COMPUTER USE AMONG PEOPLE WITH

DISABILITIES 61

Definitions 62

Exploring the Populations with Disabilities 67

Income 69

Race and Ethnicity 70

Age 71

Employment Status 72

Gender 73

Access, Use, and Disability: 16-24 Year Olds 75

Access, Use, and Disability: 25-49 Year Olds 78

Access, Use, and Disability: 50-64 Year Olds 81

Access, Use, and Disability: 65 Year Olds and Older 83

CONCLUSION - A LOOK AHEAD 89

METHODOLOGY 91

Current Population Survey 91

Survey of Income and Program Participation 92

BOXES

Box II-1 The Relationship Between the Household- and Person-based Measures 35

Box III-1 The Survey on Income and Program Participation 62

Box III-2 Building a Disability Category 64

FIGURES

Figure I-1 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer and Internet Access, Selected Years 1

Figure I-2 An Illustrative S Curve 3

Figure I-3 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access, by U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central Cities,

1998 and 2000 4

Figure I-4 Percent of Rural Households with Internet Access, by Income, 1998 and 2000 5

Figure I-5 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer, by U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 7

Figure I-6 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access, by Income, 1998 and 2000 8

Figure I-7 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer, by Income, 1998 and 2000 10

Figure I-8 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access, by Education, 1998 and 2000 11

Figure I-9 Percent of U.S. Households with Home Internet Access by Income and Education, 1998 and 2000 12

Figure I-10 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access, by Race/Hispanic Origin, 1998 and 2000 13

Figure I-11 Rate of Growth of Internet Penetration, by Race/Hispanic Origin, 1998 and 2000 14

Figure I-12 Income and Education Differences Account for Half of the Gap between Blacks and Hispanics

and the National Average 15

Figure I-13 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer, by Race/Hispanic Origin, 1998 and 2000 16

Figure I-14 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer, by Family Type, 1998 and 2000 18

Figure I-15 High Speed Internet Access, 2000 24

Figure I-16 High Speed Internet Access, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central Cities, Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access 24

Figure I-17 Reasons for U.S. Households with a Computer/Web TV Never Accessing the Internet,

Percent Distribution, 2000 26

Figure I-18 Reasons for U.S. Households Discontinuing Internet Use, Percent Distribution, 2000 28

Figure II-1 Different Perspectives on Internet Access and Use 35

Figure II-2 Broad Increases in Internet Use Since 1998 36

Figure II-3 Internet Use by Income 37

Figure II-4 Internet Use by Race/Ethnicity 38

Figure II-5 Household Access Rates by Race/Ethnicity Do Not Closely Track Internet Use by Persons 38

Figure II-6 Internet Use by Gender and Age 39

Figure II-7 Internet Use by Gender and Race/Ethnicity 40

Figure II-8 Internet Use Rates by Educational Attainment 41

Figure II-9 Internet Use by Age Group 41

Figure II-10 Internet Use by Income, Age 18-24 43

Figure II-11 Internet Use Age 25-49 and Labor Force Status 44

Figure II-12 Internet Use Age 50+ and Labor Force Status 45

Figure II-13 Internet Access by Location 46

Figure II-14 Internet Use by Location and Race/Ethnicity 46

Figure II-15 Online Activities 48

Figure II-16 The Percent of Internet Users Searching for Jobs on the Internet Declines as Income Increases 50

Figure III-1 Internet Access by Disability Status, 1999 65

Figure III-2 Personal Computer Use Experience by Disability Status, 1999 66

Figure III-3 Regular Users of PCs by Location and Disability Status, 1999 66

Figure III-4 Income Distribution for Persons with a Disability 68

Figure III-5 Income Distribution for Persons without a Disability 68

Figure III-6 Age Distribution for Persons with a Disability 68

Figure III-7 Age Distribution for Persons without a Disability 68

Figure III-8 Employment Status Distribution for Persons with a Disability 68

Figure III-9 Employment Status Distribution for Persons without a Disability 68

Figure III-10 Internet Access at Home, by Income and Disability Status, 1999 69

Figure III-11 Regularly Uses a PC, by Income and Disability Status, 1999 69

Figure III-12 Internet Access at Home, by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status, 1999 70

Figure III-13 Regularly Uses a PC, by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status, 1999 70

Figure III-14 Internet Access at Home, by Age and Disability Status, 1999 71

Figure III-15 Regularly Uses a PC by Age and Disability Status, 1999 71

Figure III-16 Internet Access at Home, by Employment and Disability Status, 1999 72

Figure III-17 Regularly Uses a PC, by Employment and Disability Status, 1999 72

Figure III-18 Internet Access at Home by Gender and Disability Status, 1999 73

Figure III-19 Regularly Uses a PC by Gender and Disability Status, 1999 73

Figure III-20 Internet Access Among 16-24 Year Olds, by Disability Status 76

Figure III-21 Personal Computer Use Experience Among 16-24 Year Olds, by Disability Status, 1999 76

Figure III-22 Internet Access Among 25-49 Year Olds, by Disability Status, 1999 78

Figure III-23 Personal Computer Use Experience Among 25-49 Year Olds, by Disability Status, 1999 78

Figure III-24 Internet Access Among Employed 25-49 Year Olds, by Disability Status, 1999 79

Figure III-25 Personal Computer Use Experience Among Employed 25-49 Year Olds, by Disability Status, 1999 79

Figure III-26 Internet Access Among 50-64 Year Olds, by Disability Status, 1999 81

Figure III-27 Personal Computer Use Experience Among 50-64 Year Olds, by Disability Status, 1999 81

Figure III-28 Internet Access Among 65 and Older, by Disability Status, 1999 83

Figure III-29 Personal Computer Use Experience Among 65 and Older, by Disability Status, 1999 83

TABLES

Table I-A Percent of Households with Computers, by State: 2000 21

Table I-B Percent of Households with Internet Access, by State: 2000 22

Table I-1 Percent of Households with a Computer 30

Table 1-2 Percent of Households with Internet Access 31

Table II-1 Internet Use Individuals Age 3 and Older 51

Table II-2 Internet Use Individuals Age 3-8 Years 53

Table II-3 Internet Use Individuals Age 9-17 54

Table II-4 Internet Use Individuals Age 18-25 55

Table II-5 Internet Use Individuals Age 25-49 In the Labor Force 56

Table II-6 Internet Use Individuals Age 25-49 Not in the Labor Force 57

Table II-7 Internet Use Individuals Age 50+ In the Labor Force 58

Table II-8 Internet Use Individuals Age 50 + Not in the Labor Force 59

Table II-9 Reconciliation of Household Access and Person Internet Use Rates for 2000 60

Table III-1 Disability Status of Persons 16 and Above 63

Table III-2 Population Distribution, by Age and Disability 74

Table III-3 Internet Access and Computer Use by 16-24 Year Olds 77

Table III-4 Internet Access and Computer Use by 25-49 Year Olds 80

Table III-5 Internet Access and Computer Use by 50-64 Year Olds 82

Table III-6 Internet Access and Computer Use by 65 Year Olds and Older 84

Table III-7 Individuals 16 and Over 85

Table III-8 Internet Access and Computer Use 86

Table III-9 Disability, by Age 87

APPENDIX

Figure A1 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer and Internet Access 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 94

Figure A2 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 94

Figure A3 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer By Income, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 95

Figure A4 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer By Race/Hispanic Origin, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 95

Figure A5 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer By Income, By Race/ Hispanic Origin, 2000 96

Figure A6 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer By Education, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 96

Figure A7 Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer By Household Type, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 97

Figure A8 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access By U.S. Rural, Urban and Central City Areas,

1998 and 2000 97

Figure A9 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access By Income, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 98

Figure A10 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access By Race/Hispanic Origin, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 98

Figure A11 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access By Income, By Race/Hispanic Origin, 2000 99

Figure A12 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access By Education, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and

Central City Areas, 2000 99

Figure A13 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access By Household Type, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 100

Figure A14 Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access By Age, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 100

Figure A15 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access, 2000 101

Figure A16 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access By Technology and Age, 2000 101

Figure A17 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access By Region, 2000 102

Figure A18 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access By Income, 2000 102

Figure A19 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access By Education, 2000 103

Figure A20 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access By Age, 2000 103

Figure A21 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access By Race/Hispanic Origin, 2000 104

Figure A22 Percent of U.S. Households with High-Speed Internet Access By Type of Household, 2000 104

Figure A23 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet By Location, 2000 105

Figure A24 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet By Income, By Location, 2000 105

Figure A25 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet By Race/Hispanic Origin, By Location, 2000 106

Figure A26 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet At Home By Race/Hispanic Origin, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 106

Figure A27 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Race/Hispanic Origin, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 107

Figure A28 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet By Education, By Location, 2000 107

Figure A29 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet, By Household Type, By Location, 2000 108

Figure A30 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet, By Age, By Location, 2000 108

Figure A31 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet, By Gender, By Location, 2000 109

Figure A32 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Selected Places, By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 2000 109

Figure A33 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Income, By Selected

Places, 2000 110

Figure A34 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Race/Hispanic Origin, By Selected Places, 2000 110

Figure A35 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home at Schools (K-12) By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas By Race/Hispanic Origin, 2000 111

Figure A36 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home at Work By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, By Race/Hispanic Origin, 2000 111

Figure A37 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Education, By Selected

Places, 2000 112

Figure A38 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Household Type, By Selected

Places, 2000 112

Figure A39 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Gender, By Selected

Places, 2000 113

Figure A40 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet Outside the Home By Selected Places, By Employment Status, 2000 113

Figure A41 Reasons for Households with a Computer/WebTV Not Using the Internet at Home,

By Income, 2000 114

Figure A42 Reasons for Households with a Computer/WebTV Not Using the Internet at Home, By Race/Hispanic Origin, 2000 114

Figure A43 Reasons for Households with a Computer/WebTV Not Using the Internet at Home,

By Education, 2000 115

Figure A44 Reasons for Households with a Computer/WebTV Not Using the Internet at Home, By Household Type, 2000 115

Figure A45 Reasons for Households with a Computer/WebTV Not Using the Internet at Home,

By Age, 2000 116

Figure A46 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet At Home By Type of Use, 2000 116

Figure A47 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet At Home By Income, By Type of Use, 2000 117

Figure A48 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet At Home By Race/Hispanic Origin, By Type

of Use, 2000 117

Figure A49 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet At Home By Education, By Type of Use, 2000 118

Figure A50 Percent of U.S. Persons Using the Internet At Home By Type of Use, By Employment

Status, 2000 118

Appendix Table 1 Reasons for Discontinuing Home Internet Use, by Selected Characteristics of Reference Person,

Total, Urban, Rural, Central City, 2000 119

INTRODUCTION

Robert J. Shapiro

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

Administrator, Economics and Statistics Administration

Gregory L. Rohde

Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information

Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration

This is the fourth report in the Commerce Department series of studies, Falling Through the Net. The previous three were focused on the theme of the "Digital Divide," the concept that the society should not be separated into information haves and information have-nots.

With this report, we move into a new phase of our information-gathering and policy-making by recognizing the phenomenal growth that has taken place in the availability of computing and information technology tools, tempered by the realization that there is still much more to be done to make certain that everyone is included in the digital economy. Thus, the theme for this year, Toward Digital Inclusion, recognizes each element of the equation -- the progress made and the progress yet to be made.

Measuring the growth and use of the Internet is, like the Internet itself, a complex endeavor. This report reflects our attempt to capture three of the key benchmarks. Part I looks at Internet and computer access of households. We do this because the household is the traditional standard by which access is defined, in the United States and around the world. The examination of household access includes such factors as geography, income, race, and household type.

In looking at the results and trying to determine the progress from year to year, it is important to understand that there is more than one way to interpret the results. When looking at computer and Internet access, it is clear that certain groups have far higher levels of Internet access and computer ownership. These groups have generally exhibited greater percentage point changes in their penetration rates from one survey to the next. On the other hand, they exhibit slower expansion rates from one survey to the next. At the same time, groups with lower penetration rates are exhibiting smaller percentage point changes but higher expansion rates because they are starting from a much lower base and have more opportunity for rapid and greater expansion.

Part I also includes a new facet to the survey. For the first time, we survey household access to high-speed Internet services, primarily through cable TV and Digital Subscriber Line services. There are large differences in high-speed access based on income and other variables, and these initial data will enable us to track the increases and diffusion of high-speed access as broadband infrastructure is widely adopted.

Part II provides a different way of looking at the penetration of Internet access and computers. Instead of looking at households, this section of the report examines computer and online access by individuals. Many households, for example, include people who do not use the Internet, and the rate or degree at which this occurs differs among groups. By focusing on individuals, we are also able to capture important differences in Internet use based on people's age, gender, and labor force status. We can also look at how people use the Internet, for example, for e-mail or to look for a job, as well as where they use it, whether at home or at a library, for example.

Part III, for the first time, examines the use of computers and the Internet among people with disabilities that adversely affect their ability to walk, to see, to hear, to use their hands and fingers, or to learn. In general, Internet access is half as common among people with disabilities as among other people, and computer access is even more skewed. To some degree this may reflect the fact that on average, disabled people are older and less likely to be employed, and also have lower incomes than people without disabilities. All of these variables are associated with lower computer and Internet use.

By preparing and issuing this report, we hope to establish an objective baseline so the American people can understand the critical issue of access to the information technologies that are transforming the economy and our lives. In this way, this report can provide a basis for the continuing public debate about how best to ensure that every American can participate in the digital economy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Internet is becoming an increasingly vital tool in our information society. More Americans are going online to conduct such day-to-day activities as education, business transactions, personal correspondence, research and information-gathering, and job searches. Each year, being digitally connected becomes ever more critical to economic and educational advancement and community participation. Now that a large number of Americans regularly use the Internet to conduct daily activities, people who lack access to these tools are at a growing disadvantage. Therefore, raising the level of digital inclusion by increasing the number of Americans using the technology tools of the digital age is a vitally important national goal.

This report, Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, is the fourth in the Falling Through the Net series. In this report, we measure the extent of digital inclusion by looking at households and individuals that have a computer and an Internet connection. We measure the digital divide, as we have before, by looking at the differences in the shares of each group that is digitally connected. For the first time, we also provide data on high-speed access to the Internet, as well as access to the Internet and computers by people with disabilities.

The data show that the overall level of U.S. digital inclusion is rapidly increasing:

1. The share of households with Internet access soared by 58%, rising from 26.2% in December 1998 to 41.5% in August 2000.



2. More than half of all households (51.0%) have computers, up from 42.1% in December 1998.

A NEW DIMENSION: HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS

One of the bonanzas of rapid technological change has been the development of infrastructure featuring wider bandwidth and faster transmission speeds. This diffusion of the higher-speed access services, generally classified as "broadband," has only just begun.⁽⁹⁾ This year's report presents the results from the first systematic data collection on user access to high-speed broadband service that has been undertaken in a large scale personal interview survey with a very high response rate.⁽¹⁰⁾

In August 2000, 10.7% of online households (about 4.5% of all U.S. households) had broadband-speed access. The remaining 89.3% of online households (37.0% of all U.S. households) connect to the Internet by regular dial-up phone service.

Among total broadband households, the overwhelming majority either procure cable modems (50.8%) or DSL (33.7%) (See Figure I-15). Wireless and satellite (4.6%) and other telephone-based technologies such as ISDN (10.9%) account for much lower percentages. Broadband preferences can vary, however, by demographic characteristics. For example, the youngest householders prefer DSL (50.1%) over cable modems (42.7%), whereas other age groups use relatively more cable modems than DSL. Location also matters: in central cities, DSL (38.2%) and cable modem (44.2%) penetrations are relatively close; this contrasts with urban broadband households (which includes central cities and the suburbs), where the cable modem rate (51.1%) significantly exceeds that for DSL (33.6%). Regions also produce some wide variations. For example, the West demonstrates a balance between its DSL (43.1%) and cable modem (41.9%) diffusion; this contrasts with the Northeast's clear preference for cable modems (62%) over DSL (24.5%).⁽¹¹⁾

Broadband penetration differs by location as shown in Figure I-16: central city (12.2%) vs. urban (11.8%) vs. rural (7.3%) vs. U.S. (10.7%). Regional variations occur, as well: the West (11.9%) surpasses the Midwest (9.2%), while the Northeast (11.0%) and South (10.7%) rank between the two. The West has both the nation's highest rate for central city areas (13.0%) and the lowest rate for rural environs (5.9%).

The penetration rate generally rises as household income increases because broadband access costs more than regular dial-up Internet access. Among those online households with family income of less than $15,000, only 7.7% selected faster access modes, the lowest rate of any income bracket. Conversely, the most affluent households (with incomes $75,000 and greater) exhibit the highest proportion of broadband at 13.8%, or more than double the above low-income penetration rate. The lowest bracket (under $5,000) breaks the pattern, yielding one of the highest percentages (9.9%); this may reflect the presence of students who desire higher transmission speeds for school or simply attach a higher priority to faster access.

Educational attainment above the level of high school also affects broadband percentages. Those with college degrees (12.5%) exceed the national penetration rate for all households (10.7%). The households where education levels were high school or less trailed substantially with rates less than 9%. Householders with at least some college (9.9%) ranked in between the two extremes but below the national average.

Purchase of faster transmission rates tends to be inversely related to age. The youngest householders boast the highest broadband penetration (12.3%) -perhaps reflecting the student factor- while seniors rank the lowest (9.0%). Interestingly, the age group between 45 and 54 can claim one of the highest penetration rates (11.2%). Internet access speeds vary by race and origins as well, with minorities registering both the highest and lowest diffusion rates. Asian American and Pacific Islander households have the highest broadband rate (11.7%), followed by Whites (10.8%). Blacks (9.8%) and Hispanics (8.9%) rank lowest.

Both the number of parents and gender type are correlated with broadband access rates. Thus, male householders with children rank highest (12.6%), while female-headed families rank lowest (8.2%). Two-parent families and families without children both exhibit broadband penetrations (10.6%) approximating the national average; non-family households (11.7%) exceed this average by a full percentage point.

NON-INTERNET HOUSEHOLDS

As of August 2000, 41.5% of the Nation's 105 million households, or 43.6 million homes, had Internet access. Thus, 58.5% of households (61.6 million) were not connected electronically. In contrast, in December 1998 there were 76.5 million unconnected households (73.8%). This movement represents a substantial decline in both the proportion (15.3 percentage points) and number (a drop of 14.9 million) of non-Internet households relative to 20 months earlier.

As of August 2000, the number of households that had computers but no Internet access was 10.8 million, down from 16.9 million in December 1998, a decline of 36%. During that time frame, the proportion of PC households without access fell from 38.4% to 19.8%.

A household may not be connected to the Internet for a number of reasons. In terms of its historical experience, a household may have never been connected, or it may have decided to discontinue its Internet use. We address these situations below.

WHY HOUSEHOLDS WITH COMPUTERS HAVE NEVER HAD INTERNET ACCESS

Within computer households, there are a number of households that have never had an Internet connection. In August 2000, these households totaled 8.7 million. This figure represents a sizeable decline from December 1998, when the count equaled 14.4 million, or 66% higher than the 2000 figure.

During the 2000 survey, "never-connected" households provided a number of reasons for not accessing the Internet at home (See Figure I-17). The most dominant reason was "don't want it" (30.8%). The second most common response: "cost, too expensive" (17.3%). Other leading reasons for non-access included "can use elsewhere" (10.4%), "not enough time" (9.1%), and "computer not capable" (6.7%). These data are similar to the breakdown reported from the December 1998 data, which found the reasons to be: don't want (25.7%) followed by reasons of cost (16.8%), use elsewhere (9.6%), and no time (8.7%). In fact, the proportions for these major categories remained basically the same, with the notable exception of the top (don't want it) category, which increased by 5 percentage points.

Not surprisingly, for low-income households, cost prevails as the most important reason for never connecting. For those households under $15,000, one-third of respondents (32.6%) cited cost, and slightly more than one-quarter cited "don't want it" (26.6%). In contrast, the over-$75,000 bracket reversed the order of importance: "don't want it" (30.8%) surpassed cost (9.4%). The cost/don't-want-it nexus occurred at $20,000: those brackets below this threshold ranked cost number one, while those above placed "don't want it" first.

Cost affects other groups that have a computer but never had online access, as well. For example, more than one in four (26.1%) of the youngest householders (under 25 years of age) regard Internet connectivity as too expensive, rating it over "don't want it" (19.1%) as the primary reason for non-access in their households. Female householders with children also point to cost as the most important reason for non-access, with 29.9% of respondents citing this factor versus 22.5% stating that they "don't want it."

Unlike youngest householders, those in other age brackets regard "don't want it" as more important than cost; this is particularly true for seniors (55 years and older), where "don't want it" (40.4%) significantly outranks cost (14.5%). All major race/ethnic groups regard "don't want it" as more important than the cost factor. This pattern holds for Whites (31.5% vs. 16.4%), Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (30.4% vs. 13.0%), and Blacks (31.4% vs. 18.2%); it also holds for Hispanics but the differential is much less (25.5% vs. 23.7%).

The same relative rankings of "don't want it" vs. cost occur when viewed by levels of educational attainment: the difference is most pronounced for those householders with college degrees (29.3%, 11.6%), some high school (36.9%, 20.4%), or a high-school diploma (32.9%, 17.4%), and least for some college (28.3%, 20.4%). All household types except female-headed families have the same relative rankings, with male householders with children (36.5%, 22.5%) dramatically reversing the order from the 1998 survey (18.7%, 23.2%). While employed households (27.8%, 17.7%) continued the pattern established in December 1998 (23.5%, 16.5%), unemployed households (30.9%, 28.9%) experienced a major swap of rankings compared to the previous survey (13.3%, 38.2%).

Data relating to households with computers not using the Internet can be found in the Appendix, Figures A41-A45.

In sum, the number and proportion of never-connected households with computers have decreased since December 1998. Overall, the most important reasons are "don't want it" and "cost, too expensive." The former has grown in importance for a number of groups, while cost remains the paramount reason for lower-income households and a few other groups.

WHY HOUSEHOLDS WITH COMPUTERS HAVE DISCONTINUED INTERNET ACCESS

In August 2000, there were 4.0 million Internet "drop-offs" (i.e, those households that once had but do not currently have electronic access). That number is essentially unchanged from the 4.1 million "drop-offs" in December 1998.

Respondents to the August 2000 survey cited several principal reasons for their households' decisions to discontinue their Internet access (See Figure I-18). The leading factor noted was "no longer owns computers" (17.0%). Next in importance were "can use anywhere" (12.8%) and "cost, too expensive" (12.3%). The other key reasons were "don't want it" (10.3%), "not enough time" (10.0%), and "computer requires repair" (9.7%). Also provided as reasons were "moved" (6.1%), "not useful" (4.2%), "problems with ISP" (2.9%), "concern with children" (2.3%), "not user friendly" (1.5%), and "computer capacity issues" (1.2%). "Other" reasons - those that are too heterogeneous to be included elsewhere- were also given by respondents (9.8%).

These results reflect changes from the answers given in the December 1998 survey. In 1998, respondents identified "cost, too expensive" (15%) as the most important reason for dropping off the network. In 1998, the reason "no longer owns computer" ranked second (14%) and "can use anywhere" ranked fourth (9%). "Not enough time to use it" registered higher percentage (10% vs. 9%) in 2000 but slipped from third in 1998 to fourth in 2000. Respondents accorded "computer requires repair" about double the response rate from December 1998 (5%) to August 2000 but had the same ranking (sixth). "Don't want it" was the fifth most popular reason in 1998 (7%).

A more disaggregated look at the August 2000 survey results reveals additional insights. Data relating to discontinued Internet access can be found in the Appendix Table 1.

As a reason for discontinuing Internet access, "no longer owns a computer" ranks number one and cost is the number two reason for all income brackets except the highest ($75,000+). The most affluent income category respondents led with "can use elsewhere," "computer requires repair," "don't want it," and "not enough time."

Looking at different race and ethnic groups, "no longer owns computer" ranked highest for White households, followed by "can use elsewhere" and "cost." For Blacks, the ranking was "cost," "no longer owns," and "use elsewhere." Hispanic households cited "elsewhere," "no longer owns," and "cost."

Focusing on the level of educational attainment, the elementary education, some high school education, and some college education groups all identified the same two top reasons: "no longer owns computer" and "cost." The other two groups saw it differently. The high-school-degree group ranked cost first and "no longer owns" second. The college-degree group picked out "use elsewhere," followed by "no longer owns."

An examination of household types reveals some distinct differences. Married couples with children ranked "cost" and "not enough time" at the top of their list of major reasons. This contrasts with other household types, whose number one reason was "no longer owns computer": male householders with children, female householders with children, and non-family households.

All age categories except 35-44 year olds (for whom cost ranked first) rated "no longer owns computer" as the most important reason for disconnecting. The second-ranked reasons varied greatly: "can use elsewhere" for under-25 and 25-34 year olds; "computer requires repair" for 45-54 year olds; and "don't want it" for those householders at least 55 years old.

Thus, although variations exist for some specific demographic groups, August 2000 survey respondents generally identified an absence of a computer, reliance on other locations, and cost as the most important reasons for their households discontinuing their home Internet access. These reasons contrast with the responses of never-connected households, who cited "don't want it" as the most compelling reason for their non-access.

Table I-1

Percent of Households with a Computer

	December 1998	August 2000		Point change		Expansion rate
All	42.1	51.0		8.9		21.1
White Non-Hispanic	46.6	55.7		9.1		19.5
Black Non-Hispanic	23.2	32.6		9.4		40.5
Asian Amer. & Pac. Isl.	55.0	65.6		10.6		19.3
Hispanic	25.5	33.7		8.2		32.2
Less than $15,000	14.5	19.2		4.7		32.4
$15,000 - 24,999	23.7	30.1		6.4		27.0
$25,000 - 34.999	35.8	44.6		8.8		24.6
$35,000 - 49,999	50.2	58.6		8.4		16.7
$50,000 - 74,999	66.3	73.2		6.9		10.4
$75,000 and above	79.9	86.3		6.4		8.0
Less than High School	12.5	18.2		5.7		45.6
High School Graduate	31.2	39.6		8.4		26.9
Some College	49.3	60.3		11.0		22.3
College Graduate	66.9	74.0		7.1		10.6
Post Graduate	72.2	79.0		6.8		9.4
Rural	39.9	50.4		10.5		26.3
Urban	42.9	51.5		8.6		20.0
Central City	38.5	53.7		15.2		39.5
Bold indicates above the national average 8.9 point change and 21.1 % expansion rate.

Table I-2

Percent of Households with Internet Access

	December 1998	August 2000		Point change		Expansion rate
All	26.2	41.5		15.3		58.4
White Non-Hispanic	29.8	46.1		16.3		54.7
Black Non-Hispanic	11.2	23.5		12.3		109.8
Asian Amer. & Pac. Isl.	36.0	56.8		20.8		57.8
Hispanic	12.6	23.6		11.0		87.3
Less than $15,000	7.1	12.7		5.6		78.9
$15,000 - 24,999	11.0	21.3		10.3		93.6
$25,000 - 34.999	19.1	34.0		14.9		78.0
$35,000 - 49,999	29.5	46.1		16.6		56.3
$50,000 - 74,999	43.9	60.9		17.0		38.7
$75,000 and above	60.3	77.7		17.4		28.9
Less than High School	5.0	11.7		6.7		134.0
High School Graduate	16.3	29.9		13.6		83.4
Some College	30.2	49.0		18.8		62.3
College Graduate	46.8	64.0		17.2		36.8
Post Graduate	53.0	69.9		16.9		31.9
Rural	22.2	38.9		16.7		75.2
Urban	27.5	42.3		14.8		53.8
Central City	24.5	37.7		13.2		53.9
Bold indicates above the average 15.3 point change and 58.4 % expansion rate.

PART II

USE OF THE INTERNET BY INDIVIDUALS

As of August 2000, 116.5 million Americans were online--31.9 million more than only 20 months earlier. Internet users accounted for 44.4% of the U.S. population (age 3 and older), up from 32.7% in December 1998. This pattern of increasing Internet use held true at all income and education levels, for all age groups, for both men and women, for the employed and the unemployed and across all race and ethnic groups.

Groups that have historically been digital "have nots"--individuals who come from low-income households, individuals with low levels of education, minority groups (particularly Blacks and Hispanics), and older people are participating in this dramatic increase in Internet usage, but their use rates remain below the national average.

Whereas Part I examined household access, this section examines individual use. The person-based data and household-based data yield related, but not identical, rates of Internet use for factors that are common to the two data sets, such as income and race. Why these differences occur is explained in Box II-1 on page 35. Person-based data offer an understanding of ways in which individuals use the Internet. They offer the ability to examine demographic characteristics, such as age and gender, that are unique to individuals with no logical correspondence at the household level. These data offer insight into where individuals use the Internet--at home, outside the home, or in multiple places. And, where individuals are using the Internet from a location away from their home, these data provide insight into where they are getting that access. Finally, these data offer some information about the activities that individuals are undertaking while they are online.

Key insights offered by these data include:

1. Individuals age 50 and older are among the least likely to be Internet users with Internet use rate of 29.6% in 2000. This age group, however, saw faster growth in Internet use than the country as a whole, with Internet use growing at a rate of 53% compared to 36% for the country as a whole. Age, however, is only part of the story. In August 2000, individuals age 50 and older were almost three times as likely to be Internet users if they were in the labor force.



2. In August 2000, Internet use rates in the aggregate were virtually identical for men (44.6%) and women (44.2%). In December 1998, there was a gender gap in this measure--34.2% for men versus 31.4% for women.



3. For some groups with Internet use rates below the national average, use at locations outside the home appears to be a factor in the growth of Internet use rates. Nationwide, a greater share of people used the Internet from their homes in August 2000 than in December 1998. However, Black Internet users were more likely than other Internet users to rely exclusively on Internet access from outside their homes.

DEFINITIONS

Analyzing the rates of usage of computers and the Internet among people with disabilities is complicated by the existence of different ways of defining disability. Moreover, disability identification is based on self-reporting, so people with similar conditions can disagree about whether that condition constitutes a disability, and whether they want to identify as a person with a disability. The approach used by this report is to follow a concept similar to that set out in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While the Act does not specify all the possible conditions to which ADA protection applies, it does define a person with a disability to be one who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.⁽¹⁸⁾ Because information on many types of disabilities are collected in the SIPP, it is possible to construct a group that approximates the class protected under the ADA. The group designated as the group with disabilities for the purposes of this study is defined in Box III-2.⁽¹⁹⁾

It is obvious that any categorization of those with disabilities, including the one detailed here, will encompass a very diverse group of individuals who will differ from each other in almost as many ways as they differ from those outside the group. Even given this extreme heterogeneity, it may be useful to explore how the class protected by the ADA varies from the rest of the population in its members' use of technologies such as computers and the Internet. This aggregate, however, masks the possible differences that may exist among people with different types of disabilities. Therefore, in order to explore the rates at which individuals with different types of disabilities have access to the Internet and use computers, this section also considers populations with five specific disabilities: difficulty walking (i.e., uses a cane, crutches, or wheelchair), vision problems, hearing problems, difficulty using hands, and learning disabilities.

The SIPP questions relating to Internet and computer use were asked of persons age 16 and above. Between August and November 1999, when the disability and Internet and computer use questions were asked, the U.S. population for those 16 and over was estimated to be approximately 209 million with 45 million, or 21.8% having at least one of the disabilities in Box III-2. Although the proportion of persons with any specific disabilities is not large on a proportional basis, even the smallest group-those with a learning disability-has close to 3 million people (Table III-1).⁽²⁰⁾

Table III-1

Disability Status of Persons 16 and Above

	Number in Thousands	Percent of Population
Total Population 16 and over	208,783
Has any Disability	45,416	21.8%
Has Difficulty with Walking	9,209	4.4%
Has Vision Problems	7,310	3.5%
Has Hearing Problems	6,961	3.3%
Has Difficulty using Hands	6,272	3.0%
Has a Learning Disability	2,945	1.4%

Source: Survey on Income and Program Participation, research data file (August -November 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Respondents to the SIPP survey were asked whether they currently had Internet access from home and, if they did not have access from home, they were asked if they had access to the Internet "from work or somewhere else." Respondents were not asked whether they actually used the Internet.

Therefore, persons with a disability could answer "yes" to Internet access at home, even if they themselves never used it. As was noted in Part II, a quarter of people in homes with Internet access do not actually use that access. This survey's results, therefore, most likely overstate the rate of Internet use by those with and without disabilities. The degree of overstatement may also be larger for those with disabilities and vary for particular types of disabilities.

As shown in Figure III-1, persons with a disability were only half as likely to have Internet access either from home or some other location than those without any disability. There were, however, differences in rates of access for specific disabilities. Those with a learning disability, for example, are more like the population with no disability than are those with a vision problems in having access to the Internet.⁽²¹⁾

While the SIPP did not question all respondents about computer ownership, respondents were asked about their experience with personal computers. As shown in Figure III-2, one half (51%) of those without a disability use "a personal computer on a regular basis" and an additional quarter of this group responded that they have "used a personal computer, but do[es] not now use one on a regular basis." Only 25% of the group without disabilities has never used a personal computer. The situation is quite different for those who have a disability. Those with learning disabilities are the only group with a disability where at least half of the population has any experience using a personal computer.

Among those who said they regularly used a personal computer (51.0% of those with no disability and 20.9% of those with a disability), those with a disability more often noted "at home" to be the place where they used a computer, rather than the "work and home" category most often claimed by the group with no disabilities (see Figure III-3).

EXPLORING POPULATIONS WITH DISABILITIES

While some of the results presented above have plausible explanations, others raise more questions than answers. One could hypothesize, for example, that the lower rates of PC use at work by those with a disability reflect lower employment among that group, that software that relies heavily on "mouse" commands makes computer use difficult for those with manual dexterity problems, or that Web pages that are covered with graphics make it difficult for people with vision problems to navigate a site. Why, then, do those who use crutches, canes, or wheelchairs have a similarly low proportions of people accessing the Internet or using a PC regularly as those, say, with vision impairment? In order to better understand the use of computers and the Internet by those with disabilities, further examination of the composition of the various groups is necessary.

People with a disability (again using the criteria set in Box III-2) are somewhat more likely to be female than the population without disabilities, and there are some relatively minor differences in race and ethnicity distributions between the two groups (see Table III-7). There are striking differences, however, in income, age, and employment distributions: the group with disabilities has lower income, is older, and is less likely to be employed than the group without disabilities (see Figures III-4 to III-9). The previous sections of this report show these three variables to be associated with substantial variations in computer use and Internet access. And, indeed, some interesting variations are found in rates of Internet access and regular computer use between disabled and nondisabled populations when considered over these dimensions, as well as gender and race/ethnicity.

INCOME

As shown in Figure III-10, people with a disability are less likely to have access to the Internet than people without a disability at all income levels. This disparity between the two groups declines as income rises. For example, a person with a disability is less than half as likely to have home Internet access if family income is less than $25,000, while there is less than a 20% differential in access rates where family income is in the $75,000 and above range. Similarly, Figure III-11 shows that the difference between the percentage of people with disabilities who regularly use a PC and the percentage of people without a disability who regularly use a PC narrows as incomes rise.⁽²²⁾

RACE AND ETHNICITY

As regards home Internet access, Hispanics with a disability are the most like their comparative group without a disability, with the access rate of the former being 67% of the latter(see Figure III-12). When considering differences in the proportion of each group that uses a PC regularly (see Figure III-13), Blacks and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have the greatest disparity between persons with and without disabilities on a percentage basis.

AGE

Individuals in younger age groups are more similar in their degree of home Internet access whether or not they have a disability, but the disparity rises as age increases. Figure III-14 shows that those with a disability in the 16-24 year old age range have Internet access at a rate that is nearly 90% of the rate of those without a disability. The disparity between the two groups increases with age, reaching almost 50% in the 65 and over age group. A similar type of pattern holds when considering the differences that exist between persons with and without disabilities in their experience with personal computers across age groups (see Figure III-15).

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

The following charts (Figures III-16 and III-17) consider disability status by employment status.⁽²³⁾ As noted in Figures III-8 and III-9, the majority of individuals with a disability are not employed (67.8%). When we compare home Internet access rates and regular use of PCs between those with disabilities and those without, controlling for employment status, we find employed persons in the two groups are substantially more similar, than are the non-employed groups. For example, employed persons with a disability have home Internet access at a rate that is 78.3% of that for the group with no disabilities, while among the non-employed, the access rate of people with disabilities is only 46.6% of that of the group with no disabilities.

GENDER

As shown in Figure III-18, males with or without disabilities are more likely than females in the comparable populations to have Internet access at home. Further the difference between the group with disabilities and the group without disabilities is larger for women, than for men (48% to 55%, respectively). This variation is even more pronounced in the comparison of the proportion of persons who regularly use a PC: even though a slightly higher proportion of women without a disability regularly use a PC, women with a disability lag men with a disability in this category (see Figure III-19).

Table III-2

Population Distribution by Age and Disability

	16-24		25-49		50-64		65 and older
	No Disability	Has A Disability	No Disability	Has A Disability	No Disability	Has A Disability	No Disability	Has A Disability
Population (in thousands)	31,282	2,960	88,557	13,885	27,932	11,604	15,596	16,966
Population Distribution	91.4	8.6	86.4	13.6	70.6	29.4	47.9	52.1
Male	50.0	52.9	49.5	47.6	49.6	44.4	46.7	38.5
Female	50.0	47.1	50.5	52.4	50.4	55.6	53.3	61.5
White Non-Hisp.	64.9	66.4	71.9	68.8	81.3	73.9	86.4	80.8
Black Non-Hisp	14.0	18.2	11.7	16.3	8.0	13.5	6.5	9.6
Asian Am. and Pacific Islanders	4.3	1.4	3.9	2.5	3.0	2.5	2.2	2.5
Hispanic	15.7	10.9	11.7	10.7	7.1	8.8	4.6	6.1
Employed	59.6	43.2	86.9	54.9	80.3	38.4	21.5	7.5
Not Employed	40.4	56.8	13.1	45.1	19.7	61.6	78.5	92.5
Less than $25,000	27.4	38.5	20.3	42.6	18.7	41.4	44.9	60.1
$25,000 - $49,999	25.5	26.0	31.2	29.1	27.5	29.2	32.6	25.8
$50,000 - $74,999	20.0	15.1	22.9	15.9	22.7	16.6	12.7	8.2
$75,000 and above	27.1	20.4	25.6	12.4	31.1	12.8	9.8	5.9
Not a High School Graduate			9.5	21.3	11.3	29.8	24.7	40.6
High School Graduate			30.3	37.0	31.8	33.4	36.5	30.8
Some College			31.2	28.5	27.7	23.6	21.3	17.9
College Graduate			28.9	13.2	29.2	13.2	17.5	10.7

Source: Survey on Income and Program Participation, research data file (August -November 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Note: Educational attainment not reported for 16-24 year olds in this table because over 50% of this age group are full-time students.

While any of the above socio-economic variables would provide an interesting basis by which to consider specific disabilities in greater detail, age is the variable selected here. As people age, they are increasingly likely to develop a disability. Fewer than 9% of people between the ages of 16 and 24 have a disability, but more than half of those 65 and older have at least one type of disability. (Table III-7 and III-9). And as shown in Table III-2, although differences remain between those groups with and without disabilities in each of the four age groups considered here across variables such as gender, race/ethnicity, employment status, and income, these differences are less than the differences shown in Table III-7.

ACCESS, USE, AND DISABILITY: 16-24 YEAR OLDS

This youngest of the age groups for which SIPP computer use and Internet access data are available has the highest rates of Internet and computer use, and members of this age group are least likely to have a disability. Of the population with a disability, just under 3 million fall into the 16-24 year old range, limiting the amount of disaggregation that can be presented for this age group. Of the specific disabilities considered in this report, only learning disabilities had a sample size sufficient to produce reliable results. Those with learning disabilities make up 2.8% of the population in this age group, while the other disabilities of difficulty walking, seeing, hearing, and using one's hands each make up less than 1% of this population group.

Although 16-24 year olds with disabilities have lower rates of Internet access and are less likely to have used a PC, the differences between people who have a disability and people who do not are much smaller than for the entire 16 and over population (Figures III-20 and III-21). Table III-3 shows how Internet access and PC use varies across several sets of characteristics. Of special note is the fact that Internet access is the same for people who have a disability and are employed, as for people who do not have a disability and are employed. A separate breakout of educational attainment is not included for this age group because over half of the people in this age category are full-time students.

Table III-3

Internet Access and Computer Use by 16-24 Year Olds

(Population: 34,242,000)

	Home Internet Access		Internet Access, But Not At Home			Regular PC User		Never Used a PC
	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity		No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disability	Has a Disability
All 16-24 Year Olds	41.4	35.9	20.6	17.1		57.6	39.5	9.4	21.6
Male	41.5	34.8	19.4	15.1		54.8	35.5	10.1	22.6
Female	41.2	37.1	21.9	19.2		60.3	44.0	8.8	20.5
White Non-Hisp.	50.0	44.7	20.1	16.0		64.4	46.5	5.6	16.2
Black Non-Hisp	22.8		23.5			41.1	23.4	16.8	35.8
Asian Am. and Pacific Islanders	48.3		20.1			69.0		5.4
Hispanic	21.6		20.2			41.6	30.8	18.6	31.3
Employed	44.4	43.4	19.8	19.6		59.1	48.8	8.0	10.9
Not Employed	36.9	30.1	21.9	15.1		55.3	32.4	11.5	29.7
Less than $25,000	24.6	25.0	23.4	19.5		42.6	28.6	14.7	27.7
$25,000 - $49,999	35.7	32.8	23.0	17.8		55.1	37.5	10.4	22.3
$50,000 - $74,999	46.3		19.2			63.2		8.1	16.4
$75,000 and above	60.0	57.4	16.6	14.1		70.8	59.2	4.2	13.1
Full-Time Students	49.1	43.0	24.5	19.8		69.1	50.2	4.5	16.6

Source: Survey on Income and Program Participation, research data file (August -November 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Note: Blank cells in the table indicate insufficient sample size to produce reliable estimates.

ACCESS, USE, AND DISABILITY: 25-49 YEAR OLDS

Although data presented in Part II indicate that the proportion of individuals using the Internet remains relatively constant over every age in this grouping, there are substantial differences in access when considered across characteristics such as income and educational attainment (see Table III-4). For example, college graduates in the 25-49 year old age group had very similar rates of home Internet access regardless of disability status (67.8% for those with no disability and 65.2% for those with a disability). In addition, there are differences among the people with various disabilities within this group. Those with hearing difficulties had an Internet access rate of 52.7%,roughly half-way between the 61.6% rate for those without a disability and the rates in the low 40s for those with other disabilities.

This age group has the highest proportion employed of any age group considered here and although the proportion employed on a full-time basis among those with no disabilities (86.9%) exceeds the proportion of those with a disability who are likewise employed (54.9%), there are sufficient numbers in both groups to take a detailed look at variations by disability status. As shown in Figures III-24 and III-25, differences in Internet access and computer use are less when considering only those in each group who were employed on a full-time basis⁽²⁴⁾.

Table III-4

Internet Access and Computer Use by 25-49 Year Olds

(Population: 102,442,000)

	Home Internet Access		Internet Access, But Not At Home			Regular PC User		Never Used a PC
	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity		No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity
All 25-49 Year Olds	46.6	31.4	15.0	10.5		55.9	33.3	18.9	39.5
Male	47.3	31.6	13.1	8.3		54.4	33.2	21.0	43.3
Female	46.0	31.2	16.9	12.5		57.4	33.5	16.8	36.1
White Non-Hisp.	53.6	37.1	15.6	11.4		62.42	39.0	12.5	32.6
Black Non-Hisp	27.4	14.8	17.4	9.2		41.8	17.8	28.2	58.6
Asian Am. and Pacific Islanders	49.9		12.2			53.9	32.8	23.2	40.0
Hispanic	23.3	18.6	9.8	6.8		31.6	21.1	47.2	54.4
Employed	47.3	39.4	16.3	15.2		58.3	45.7	17.1	26.3
Not Employed	42.4	21.6	6.5	4.8		40.3	18.3	30.6	55.7
Less than $25,000	27.7	16.9	12.4	7.7		36.5	18.0	34.6	52.9
$25,000 - $49,999	39.0	33.6	17.5	12.1		51.2	38.1	21.4	34.8
$50,000 - $74,999	53.3	44.5	14.7	12.9		61.8	45.9	13.2	28.5
$75,000 and above	64.9	59.1	14.4	13.3		71.8	58.3	8.5	19.2
Not a High School Graduate	12.2	9.4	3.8	4.0		13.6	8.9	64.0	74.8
High School Graduate	34.1	24.5	12.9	8.4		39.9	24.0	27.2	43.6
Some College	49.7	41.2	17.0	15.2		60.7	45.5	11.4	22.8
College Graduate	67.8	65.2	18.8	16.9		81.5	72.6	3.3	7.2

Source: Survey on Income and Program Participation, research data file (August -November 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Note: Blank cells in the table indicate insufficient sample size to produce reliable estimates.

ACCESS, USE, AND DISABILITY: 50-64 YEAR OLDS

Among the 50 to 64 year old age group, 30% have at least one of the disabilities listed in Box III-2 and the proportion with any one of the five disabilities considered, with the exception of learning disabilities, is also substantially higher than in the 25-49 year old group. This is an age group that has wide variations in Internet access and computer use within the group of people who have disabilities. For example, 70.9% of those who have a disability and have family income of less than $25,000 have never used a PC. That proportion falls to 29.7% in the $75,000 and above income group.

Table III-5

Internet Access and Computer Use by 50-64 Year Olds

(Population: 39,536,000)

	Home Internet Access		Internet Access, But Not At Home			Regular PC User		Never Used a PC
	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity		No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity
All 50-64 Year Olds	42 .5	24.0	12.6	7.2		48.1	23.3	28.9	55.5
Male	45.1	25.2	11.2	7.6		48.7	23.5	30.2	56.4
Female	39.9	23.0	13.9	6.8		47.5	23.1	27.7	54.8
White Non-Hisp.	46.6	28.2	13.2	7.8		52.8	26.8	23.8	50.4
Black Non-Hisp	23.8	10.0	11.5	7.1		31.0	14.9	45.8	66.9
Asian Am. and Pacific Islanders	34.2		10.4			31.8		46.8
Hispanic	20.6		7.2			21.3	10.2	61.4	77.3
Employed	44.2	32.8	14.8	14.3		52.6	39.9	25.6	36.8
Not Employed	35.5	18.5	3.8	2.7		29.6	12.9	42.7	67.2
Less than $25,000	23.6	12.2	10.5	4.2		28.1	10.9	47.3	70.9
$25,000 - $49,999	31.2	23.9	12.6	8.3		40.7	24.8	34.6	52.6
$50,000 - $74,999	46.5	30.5	12.9	10.7		51.5	33.8	25.2	42.3
$75,000 and above	60.8	54.2	13.6	9.6		64.1	46.3	15.6	29.7
Not a High School Graduate	13.6	7.4	4.0	1.8		11.4	5.8	73.6	83.5
High School Graduate	30.6	17.6	11.9	7.1		34.0	17.3	39.8	59.4
Some College	45.7	39.4	13.7	10.7		52.1	38.6	19.4	33.6
College Graduate	63.6	50.2	15.6	13.2		73.8	50.4	8.9	21.7

Source: Survey on Income and Program Participation, research data file (August -November 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Note: Blank cells in the table indicate insufficient sample size to produce reliable estimates.

ACCESS, USE, AND DISABILITY: 65 YEAR OLDS AND OLDER

Over one-half (52.1%) of the population in this age group has a disability. Considering it another way, this age group accounts for only 15.6% of the population as a whole, but over one-third (37.4%)of the total number of people with a disability. This age group has very low rates of home Internet access and computer use generally, and the rates for those with a disability are very low. Therefore, even with the large number of those with a disability, low rates of home Internet access make it impossible to distinguish between individual types of disabilities for Figure III-28.

Table III-6

Internet Access and Computer Use by 65 Year Olds and Older

(Population: 4,221,000)

	Home Internet Access		Internet Access, But Not At Home			Regular PC User		Never Used a PC
	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity		No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity	No Disabil-ity	Has a Disabil-ity
All 65 and Older	17.4	9.3	3.7	1.8		15.1	5.7	66.6	83.8
Male	20.2	12.5	3.9	1.9		19.7	7.6	63.0	79.8
Female	15.0	7.4	3.5	1.8		11.0	4.5	69.8	86.3
White Non-Hisp.	18.6	10.4	3.7	2.0		16.2	6.6	64.7	81.6
Black Non-Hisp
Asian Am. and Pacific Islanders
Hispanic
Employed	24.6		9.8			28.4	19.2	52.1	64.2
Not Employed	15.5	8.8	2.0	1.6		11.4	4.6	70.6	85.4
Less than $25,000	9.1	4.1	2.8	1.1		7.9	2.9	78.9	89.6
$25,000 - $49,999	18.0	13.0	3.1	2.6		18.2	8.2	59.5	78.1
$50,000 - $74,999	31.3		5.5			22.7	12.3	52.8	69.0
$75,000 and above	36.1		7.3			27.3	13.8	51.9	70.8
Not a High School Graduate	5.3		1.6			3.5	1.7	87.6	94.4
High School Graduate	12.5	9.0	3.0	1.6		10.2	4.5	72.1	84.1
Some College	23.8	13.4	5.2	3.1		20.2	8.9	56.3	73.7
College Graduate	37.1	23.8	6.3	4.9		35.4	19.4	38.1	59.8