Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
404513283
label
Digital Divide Report
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
404513283
contentType
document
title
Digital Divide Report
citationUrl
collections
Records of the National Economic Council (Clinton Administration)
Gene Sperling's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
404513283
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
4212804-20190203F-Seg2-020-002-2024
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a3f21c3b4172f2c8
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2019-0203-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Economic Council
Series/Staff Member:
Gene Sperling
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
20703
FolderID:
Folder Title:
DIGITAL DIVIDE REPORT
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
17
7
4
3
DIGITAL DIVIDE REPORT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. DRAFT POTUS STATEMENT
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REPORT
3. PART 1: HOUSEHOLD ACCESS
4. PART 2: ACCESS TO THE INTERNET BY INDIVIDUALS
5. INTERNET ACCESS AND COMPUTER USE AMONG PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES
AM/TAKIPD
Need to be clear
October 12, 2000
or Sunday
MEMORANDUM FOR GENE SPERLING
when this () to +
FROM:
TOM KALIL
he 1 tylan
RE:
DIGITAL DIVIDE REPORT
Summary: The Commerce Department is finalizing their report on the digital divide -- "Falling 10/14/0
Through The Net: Toward Digital Inclusion." They were planning on having Secretary Mineta
release this on Monday, but they would obviously be willing to have the President announce this
instead.
Major findings
Share of households with Internet access increased from 26.2 percent to 41.5 percent
(December 1998 to August 2000)
More than half of households have computers 51 percent, up from 42.1 percent.
As of August 2000, 116.5 million Americans were online, 31.9 million more than 20 months
ago.
Rural households are beginning to approach the nationwide Internet penetration rate. In rural
areas, 38.9 percent of households had Internet access, up from 22.2 percent in December
1998.
Rural areas are lagging behind central cities in broadband penetration (7.3 percent vs. 12.2
percent).
African-Americans and Hispanics, while they still lag behind other groups, have made
significant gains. Black households are now more than twice as likely to have home access
as they were 20 months ago - rising from 11.2 percent to 23.5 percent. Internet access has
increased from 12.6 percent to 23.6 percent among Hispanic households. Differences in
income and education levels account for about 1/2 of the gap between Black and Hispanic
Internet access and the national average.
Blacks are more likely to rely on locations outside the home, such as public libraries, for
Internet access. [This shows the importance of CTCs.]
Although low-income households are still much less likely to be connected, their access grew
at faster than the national average. For example, Internet access among households with
income between $15,000 and $25,000 increased from 11 percent to 21.3 percent, a 96 percent
increase -- compared to the national average increase of 58 percent
People with disabilities are only half as likely to have access to the Internet as those without
a disability - 21.6 percent compared to 42.1 percent. Only 20.9 percent of|persons with
disabilities reported regularly using a computer, compared to 51 percent of those without a
disability. [This shows the importance of our disabilities initiative.]
Individuals 50 years and older are among the least likely to be Internet users - Internet
penetration rate in this group as only 29.6 percent.
Animprount
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
1
Divider Title:
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
Draft October 15, 2000
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, I am pleased to release a report from the Commerce Department, which
documents a sharp increase in the number of Americans that have access to computers and the
Internet. Although much more remains to be done to bridge the digital divide and create digital
opportunity for all Americans, I am especially pleased that many low-income, rural and minority
households are beginning to "get connected" at rates that are faster than the national average.
Access to these Information Age tools is becoming increasingly important to full
participation in America's economic, political and social life. Americans are using the Internet to
vote, look for a job, acquire new skills, and communicate more frequently with their children's
teachers. To ensure that we continue to make progress in bridging the digital divide, I urge the
Congress to restore funding for the initiatives that I have proposed in my budget. These include
my proposal to increase funding for Community Technology Centers, and for the Commerce
Department's programs to bring information technology to low-income urban and rural
communities.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
2
Divider Title:
Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion
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 business transactions,
personal correspondence, research and information-gathering, and shopping. Each year, being
digitally connected becomes ever more critical to economic, educational, and social
advancement. Now that a large number of Americans regularly use the Internet to conduct daily
activities, people who lack access to those 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:
The share of households with Internet access soared by 58%, rising from 26.2% in
December 1998 to 41.5% in August 2000.
*
More than half of all households (51.0%) have computers, up from 42.1% in
December 1998.
*
There were 116.5 million Americans online at some location in August 2000, 31.9
million more than there were only 20 months earlier.
*
The share of individuals using the Internet rose by 35.8%, from 32.7% in
December 1998 to 44.4% in August 2000. If growth continues at that rate, more
than half of all Americans will be using the Internet by the middle of 2001.
The rapid uptake of new technologies is occurring among most groups of Americans,
regardless of income, education, race or ethnicity, location, age, or gender, suggesting that digital
inclusion is a realizable goal. Groups that have traditionally been digital "have nots" are now
making dramatic gains:
*
The gap between households in rural areas and households nationwide that access
the Internet has narrowed from 4.0 percentage points in 1998 to 2.6 percentage
points in 2000. Rural households are much closer to the nationwide Internet
penetration rate of 41.5%. In rural areas this year, 38.9% of the households had
Internet access, a 75% increase from 22.2% in December 1998.
Americans at every income level are connecting at far higher rates from their
homes, particularly at the middle income levels. Internet access among
households earning $35,000 to $49,000 rose from 29.0% in December 1998 to
46.1% in August 2000. Today, more than two-thirds of all households earning
more than $50,000 have Internet connections (60.9% for households earning
$50,000 to $74,999 and 77.7% for households earning above $75,000).
Access to the Internet is also expanding across every education level, particularly
for those with some high school or college education. Households headed by
someone with "some college experience" showed the greatest expansion in
Internet penetration of all education levels, rising from 30.2% in December 1998
to 49.0% in August 2000.
Blacks and Hispanics, while they still lag behind other groups, have shown
impressive gains in Internet access. Black households are now more than twice as
likely to have home access than they were 20 months ago, rising from 11.2% to
23.5%. Hispanic households have also experienced a tremendous growth rate
during this period, rising from 12.6% to 23.6%.
The disparity in Internet usage between men and women has largely disappeared.
In December 1998, 34.2% of men and 31.4% of women were using the Internet.
By August 2000, 44.6% of men and a statistically indistinguishable 44.2% of
women were Internet users.
Individuals 50 years of age and older -- while still less likely than younger
Americans to use the Internet -- experienced the highest rates of growth in Internet
usage of all age groups: 53% from December 1998 to August 2000, compared to a
35% growth rate for individual Internet usage nationwide.
Nonetheless, a digital divide remains or has expanded slightly in some cases, even while
Internet access and computer ownership are rising rapidly for almost all groups. For example,
the August 2000 data show that noticeable divides still exist between those with different levels
of income and education, different racial and ethnic groups, old and young, single and
dual-parent families, and those with and without disabilities.
*
Persons with a disability are only half as likely to have access to the Internet as
those without a disability: 21.6% compared to 42.1%. And while just under 25%
of those without a disability have never used a personal computer, close to 60% of
those with a disability fall into that category.
Among those with a disability, people who have impaired vision and problems
with manual dexterity have even lower rates of Internet access and are less likely
to use a computer regularly than people with hearing and mobility problems. This
difference holds in the aggregate, as well as across age groups.
*
Large gaps also remain regarding Internet penetration rates among households of
different races and ethnic origins. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have
maintained the highest level of home Internet access at 56.8%. Blacks and
Hispanics, at the other end of the spectrum, continue to experience the lowest
household Internet penetration rates at 23.5% and 23.6%, respectively.
*
Large gaps for Blacks and Hispanics remain when measured against the national
average Internet penetration rate.
The divide between Internet access rates for Black households and the
national average rate was 18.0 percentage points in August 2000 (a 23.5%
penetration rate for Black households, compared to 41.5% for households
nationally). That gap is 3.0 percentage points wider than the 15.0
percentage point gap that existed in December 1998.
The Internet divide between Hispanic households and the national average
rate was 17.9 percentage points in August 2000 (a 23.6% penetration rate
for Hispanic households, compared to 41.5% for households nationally).
That gap is 4.3 percentage points wider than the 13.6 percentage point gap
that existed in December 1998.
With respect to individuals, while about a third of the U.S. population uses
the Internet at home, only 16.1% of Hispanics and 18.9% of Blacks use
the Internet at home.
Differences in income and education do not fully account for this facet of
the digital divide. Estimates of what Internet access rates for Blacks and
Hispanic households would have been if they had incomes and education
levels as high as the nation as a whole show that these two factors account
for about one-half of the differences.
*
With regard to computer ownership, the divide appears to have stabilized,
although it remains large.
The August 2000 divide between Black households and the national
average rate with regard to computer ownership was 18.4 percentage
points (a 32.6% penetration rate for Black households, compared to 51.0%
for households nationally). That gap is statistically no different from the
gap that existed in December1998.
Similarly, the 17.3 percentage point difference between the share of
Hispanic households with a computer (33.7%) and the national average
(51.%) did not register a statistically significant change from the
December 1998 computer divide.
*
Individuals 50 years of age and older are among the least likely to be Internet
users. The Internet use rate for this group was only 29.6% in 2000. However,
individuals in this age group were almost three times as likely to be Internet users
if they were in the labor force than if they were not.
*
Two-parent households are nearly twice as likely to have Internet access as
single-parent households (60.6% for dual-parent, compared to 35.7% for
male-headed households and 30.0% for female-headed households). In central
cities, only 22.8% of female-headed households have Internet access.
*
Even with broadband services, a relatively new technology used by only 10.7% of
online households, there are disparities. Rural areas, for example, are now
lagging behind central cities and urban areas in broadband penetration at 7.3%,
compared to 12.2% and 11.8%, respectively.
Americans are using the Internet in the following ways:
*
E-mail remains the Internet's 'killer application'-79.9% of Internet users reported
using e-mail.
*
Online shopping and bill paying are seeing the fastest growth.
*
Low income users were the most likely to report using the Internet to look for
jobs.
The August 2000 data show that schools, libraries, and other public access points
continue to serve those groups that do not have access at home. For example,
certain groups are far more likely to use public libraries to access the Internet,
such as the unemployed, Blacks, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
Internet access is no longer a luxury item, but a resource used by many. Overall, the
findings in this report show that there has been tremendous progress in just 20 months, but much
work remains to be done. Computer ownership and Internet access rates are rapidly rising
nationwide and for almost all groups. Nonetheless, there are still sectors of Americans that are
not adequately digitally connected. Until everyone has access to new technology tools, we must
continue to take steps to expand access to these information resources.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
3
Divider Title:
draft 10/11/00
PART I: HOUSEHOLD ACCESS
Americans have bought home computers and hooked their homes up to the Internet at a
remarkable rate between the last Census survey in December 1998 and the most recent one in
August 2000. In just 20 months, the share of homes with Internet access soared by 58%, from
26.2% to 41.5%. I In part spurred by the desire to go online from home, the share of homes with
computers rose from 42.1% to 51.0%. The fact that more than 80 percent of homes with
computers also have Internet access today, up from little more than 60 percent in 1998, suggests
the strong link between the Internet and home computers.
Figure I-1: Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer and
Internet Access, Selected Years
60
51.0
50
42.1
41.5
40
36.6
Percent of U.S. Household
30
Computer
26.2
22.8
20
15.0
Internet
14.4
10
8.2
0
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce, using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current
Population Survey supplements.
I
The share of homes with computer and Internet access represents a widely-used gauge of electronic
connectivity for a country's population. The three previous reports in the Falling Through the Net series beginning
in 1995 have focused on this metric, as have reports done in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. See Appendix
This metric has been a
.
common metric because, in some cases, data on a household basis are the only data available. As more
demographic data on persons' access become available, as those covered in the second part of this report, other
metrics can be expected to become more common.
1
Virtually every group has participated in the sharp upward trend of Americans to connect
their homes to the Internet. As reported in detail below, large gains were found at every income
category, at all education levels, among all race groups, in both rural and urban America, and in
every family type. As documented since 1997, certain groups are much further ahead than others
in establishing Internet connections from home. This year, however, we have found that
households in the middle income and education ranges are gaining ground in Internet
connections as fast or faster than those at the top ranges.
The rapid growth in computer and Internet use among those in the middle income and
education ranges and among relatively disadvantaged populations gives reason to believe that, in
some cases, the digital divide has begun to narrow or will do so soon, and that we are entering a
period of digital inclusion. In general, groups with very low adoption levels in 1998 experienced
some of the highest expansion or growth rates over the last two years, even though they may not
have experienced a high percentage point change. [See Tables 1 and 2, attached]
This section of the report examines the rates of home computers and Internet access on
the basis of households by various demographic and geographic breakdowns, and also discusses
reasons why some households choose not to go online. We also look at the penetration of
higher speed Internet access. Although still modest - 11% of Internet users and 4% of all
households - these broadband connectivity rates establish a benchmark for future comparisons.
I. OVERALL FINDINGS: THE NATION MOVES TOWARD DIGITAL INCLUSION
Between the recent U.S. Census Bureau August 2000 survey and the previous survey
conducted in December 1998, U.S. households' access to computers and the Internet has grown
dramatically. As of August 2000, there were an estimated 105 million households in the U.S.
According to the latest survey, 43.6 million households (or 41.5% of all households) had Internet
access. The percentage of homes with household Internet access registered an impressive 58%
gain from the 26.2% penetration rate in December 1998.
Computer ownership has also continued to soar. The August 2000 Census survey
determined that 53.7 million households had computers at home. The percentage of homes with
computers rose by 21%, from 42.1% to 51.0%, from December 1998 to August 2000. Since
1997, computer penetration has risen by almost 40%, while Internet access has soared by 123%.
The rapid uptake of the Internet is perhaps best revealed by examining the growing
percentage of households with computers or other devices that connect to the Internet. In 1997,
approximately barely half (50.9%) of households with computers had Internet access. By 2000,
that figure had surged to four out of five households.
II.
DIGITAL INCLUSION PROCEEDS UNEVENLY
2
The tremendous growth in household computer and Internet use has occurred across all
demographic groups, including income and education levels, races, locations, and household
types. Nevertheless, some Americans are still connecting at far higher rates than others, creating
a digital divide (i.e., a difference in rates of access to computers and the Internet) among different
demographic groups.
When looking at computer and Internet access, certain groups (such as Whites,
Asian/Pacific Islanders, and those with higher income and education levels) have far higher
levels of computer ownership and Internet access. These groups have generally exhibited greater
percentage point changes (that is, the change in penetration rate from one survey to the next). On
the other hand, they exhibit slower expansion or growth rates (i.e., the change as a percentage of
the initial base level). At the same time, groups with lower penetration rates (such as Blacks,
Hispanics, and those with lower income and education levels) 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. For example, a group which had a
penetration rate of 10% in December 1998 and 20% in August 2000 would exhibit a 100%
expansion rate but only a 10 percentage point change.
A case in point center on households with both high income and high education levels.
These households made substantial percentage point gains in Internet access during the last 20
months. They had already achieved such high levels of penetration by December 1998. Their
expansion rates since that date, however, have been surpassed by those with mid-range incomes
and levels of education.
The pattern exhibited thus far by household access to both computers and the Internet
accords with the standard "S-curve" pattern for adoption of new technologies. Historically, when
a major new technology is first introduced, the number of users expands extremely rapidly but
from a very low base. Over time, as a group reaches the middle range of the S-curve, the growth
rate tends to slow while the point change continues to increase rapidly. Once the penetration
nears 100% (or some lower saturation point at the higher end of the S-curve), both the percentage
point change and the expansion rate begin to decrease.
3
Figure I-2: An Illustrative S Curve
100
90
80
70
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
Time
The adoption rates along these curves depend on a number of factors, including the
awareness of a new technology, the affordability of that technology, adaptations to the
technology to widen its potential market, and the attraction for people to use the technology as its
usage becomes widespread. The purchase of computers for the home has been spurred not only
by falling prices and more user-friendly software, but also by the policy decision to open up the
Internet in the mid-1990s for use by the general public and commerce. For Internet access itself,
the continuation of public policies to promote competition (that lowers prices and improves
quality) and to make new technologies more accessible will substantially influence the uptake
rates of the current groups of information "have-nots," and will help move these groups to
greater digital inclusion.
Below we examine variations in household Internet and computer access, looking at
differences in geography, income, race/ethnicity, education level, and household type.
A. Geography
One of the most dramatic shifts that has occurred since December 1998 has been the
increase in Internet access by rural households. Rural areas narrowed the divide when compared
to the national average. In contrast, central cities have had significant increases in access, but fell
behind other parts of the country in terms of the gains in access. Urban areas, even though they
include central cities, continue to have a greater percentage of households with Internet
4
penetration than rural areas.² Data relating to the Internet access by geography can be found in
the Appendix, Charts -
Figure I-3: Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access
By U.S. Rural, Urban and Central Cities, 1998 and 2000
50
1998
2000
45
42.3
41.5
40
38.9
37.7
35
Percent of U.S. Households
30
27.5
26.2
24.5
25
22.2
20
15
10
5
0
U.S.
Urban
Central City
Rural
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce. using August 2000 U.S. Bureau of the Census
Current Population Survey.
Rural Households Narrow the Gap
Rural households, which traditionally trailed those in central cities and urban areas are
showing significant gains in Internet access. The gap between households in rural areas and
households nationwide that access the Internet has recently narrowed. There was a 4.0
percentage-point difference in 1998; a 2.6 point difference occurred in 2000.
In rural areas this year, 38.9% of households had Internet access, an increase of 75%
from 1998's access rate of 22.2%. In October 1997, just 14.8% of the rural households had
online access.
2 The "urban" category includes those areas classified as being urbanized (having a population density of at least
1,000 persons per square mile and a total population of at least 50,000) as well as cities, villages, boroughs (except
in Alaska and New York), towns (except in the six New England states, New York, and Wisconsin), and other
designated census areas having 2,500 or more persons. A "central city" is the largest city within a "metropolitan"
area, as defined by the Census Bureau. Additional cities within the metropolitan area can also be classified as
central cities if they meet certain employment, population, and employment/residence ratio requirements. All areas
not classified by the Census Bureau as urban are defined as rural and generally include places of less than 2,500
persons. About 1/4 of all households were in rural areas in August 2000.
5
Rural Black households, which have traditionally been near the bottom of Internet access,
showed significant improvement. In December 1998, 7.1% of those households had Internet
access. By 2000, the figure jumped to 19.9%.
The growth in rural Internet household access has come at all income levels, with the
lowest levels showing some of the highest growth rates. As a result, the rates for rural
household users now approximate those of households across the country.
Figure I-4: Percent of Rural Households with Internet Access By
Income ($000s), 1998 and 2000
90
1998
2000
80
76.6
70
59.5
60
53.7
Percent of U.S. Households
50
41.8
38.7
40
31.5
30
26.4
20.3
20
15.4
11.3
9.3
10
4.6
0
Under 15
15-24.999
25-34.999
35-49.999
50-74.999
75+
Source: NTIA and ESA. U.S. Department of Commerce. using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population
Survey supplements.
In the lowest income category, households below $15,000, Internet access for rural
households rose from 4.5% to 11.3%. At most of the other income levels, the rural households
now come close to the nation-wide figures by doubling their access rates through the middle
income levels. Growth rates have been slower at the highest income levels, but the access rates
are only slightly below the national average.
Slower Growth in Central Cities
Contrasted with the strong growth in rural areas, households in central cities have
experienced much lower rates of increase for their Internet penetration. Compared with the
nation-wide rates of penetration, the digital divide widened, even as there were positive
developments. In August 2000, 37.7% of central city households had Internet access, contrasted
with the national figure of 41.5% -- a gap of 3.8 percentage points. In December 1998, central
city households had a 24.0% access rate, 1.7 percentage points lower than the national rate. The
gap therefore appears to be growing, rather than narrowing, and central cities have slipped below
the rural areas in terms of household access.
6
Although households in central cities experienced double-digit growth in household
Internet access, their access rate was below that of the national average. The increase for central
city households from 1998 to 2000 was 13.2 percentage points (an expansion of 54%). This
compares to an increase between 1997 and 1998 figure of 7.2 points (a growth rate of 17%).
Every income category for central city households showed double-digit percentage
growth between 1998 and 2000, with the sole exception of the highest category of $75,000 per
year or more. Individual income brackets showed some dramatic increases over the period. At
the lowest income level, below $15,000, household Internet access nearly doubled, from 7.7% in
1998 to 13.5% in 2000 (an increase of 75%).
Black households in central cities registered a 20.1% access rate, about double the 1998
rate of 10.2%, but slightly below the national average for Blacks of 23.6%. The Hispanic
households in central cities had a 21.5% access rate, a little more than double the 1998 figure of
10.2%, but slightly below the national average for Hispanic households of 23.6%. White central
city households had a 47.1% Internet access rate, up from 32.3% in December 1998.
Urban Areas Continue Above -Average Internet Access
Urban areas continue to have the highest household Internet penetration rates. The rate of
growth in household Internet access in urban areas between 1998-2000 was about the same as it
was for central cities, about 54%. However, the level of access in urban areas started from a
much higher level, and continue to exceed the national average.
In urban areas, 42.3% of households had Internet access, contrasted with 41.5% of
households nationally in 2000. Urban households have seen a steady increase over the last three
years. In 1997, the household access rate for online access in urban areas was 19.9%. At the end
of 1998, the level was 27.5%. The lowest income levels saw a 72.3% increase from 1998-2000,
which translated to a 5.5 percentage point increase to the current level of 13.2% access for
households with incomes under $15,000. The $75,000+ category had a household access rate of
78.0%, the highest single category rate for the geographic regional breakdown.
Each racial and ethnic group had higher household Internet penetration rates in urban
areas than in rural areas. Urban Black households registered a 24.0% access rate, up from 11.7%
in December 1998, and contrasted with the rural figure of 19.9% for Black households. Hispanic
households had a 23.9% rate, up from 12.9% in our last report, and above the 19.9% national rate
for Hispanic households. The White household rate in urban areas was 48.3%, up from 32.4% in
December 1998, and above the national average of 46.1%.
Snapshot from Geographical Regions
The West continues to be the most wired region of the country, with household Internet
access of 46.6%, followed by the Northeast (43.0%), Midwest (40.9%), and South (37.9%).
7
Rural areas in the Northeast registered the highest rate of access (49.9%), followed by urban
areas in the West (47.2%). Northeast central city regions had the lowest household access rate,
(33.1%), followed by rural regions in the South (33.8%).
Computer Ownership by Geography
Computer ownership is closely linked to Internet access. Nationally, just over half (51%)
of households own computers, up from 42.1% in our December 1998 survey. Urban areas had
the highest rate of ownership (51.5%), increasing 8.6 points in the last 20 months. Rural areas,
tracking the growth in Internet access, had the largest single increase, 9.7 percentage points, to
reach a household ownership level of 49.6%. Central cities had a 46.3% ownership rate, up 7.8
points since December 1998. All data relating to computer ownership by geography can be
found in the Appendix, Charts -
Figure I-5: Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer
By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2000
60
1994
1997
51.0
51.5
1998
49.6
50
2000
46.3
42.1
42.9
39.9
40
38.5
36.6
37.2
34.9
Percent of U.S. Households
32.8
30
24.1
24.8
22.1
22.0
20
10
0
U.S.
Rural
Urban
Central City
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce, using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population
Survey supplements.
Households in all regions at all income levels also showed improvements in computer
ownership. In both central cities and in urban areas, 20% of households with less than $15,000
income now own computers, contrasted with 17% of rural households in the same income
bracket. Nationally, 19.2% of households with less than $15,000 own a computer, according to
the 2000 survey. That figure is up from 14.5% in December 1998.
B. Income
Although computers and Internet access are coming down in price, they are still
sufficiently expensive that household income remains an important factor in home Internet
8
access. Nevertheless, households across all income levels and throughout the country have made
significant gains in achieving Internet access since the last Falling Through the Net study was
released. Some of the biggest gains have come at every income level in rural areas. In addition,
gains have been made at all income levels as measured by different racial and ethnic
communities. Data relating to the Internet access by income can be found in the Appendix,
Charts -
Internet Penetration Rises Across Income Levels
Household Internet access continues to correlate closely to income. Across the U.S.,
however, households in the lower income bands registered increases in Internet access much
faster than the national 58% gain. Households with less than $15,000 in income had a 12.7%
Internet penetration rate, 79% higher than in December 1998.³ The rate of change is impressive.
Between 1997 and 1998, the income band improved only 82%, from 3.9% penetration to 7.1%.
At the $15,000-$24,999 income levels, 21.3% of households had Internet access. The rate of
increase between 1998 and 2000 was 96%, as the penetration rate increased steadily from 6.4%
in 1997, to 10.9% in 1998, to 21.3% in 2000. This year's penetration rate for households with
incomes between $25,000 and $34,999 34.0%, an increase of 81% from the 18.8% penetration
rate in 1998.
Figure I-6: Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access
By Income ($000s), 1998 and 2000
90
1998
2000
80
77.7
70
60.9
60.3
60
Percent of U.S. Households
50
46.2
43.9
40
34.0
29.5
30
21.3
19.1
20
12.7
11.0
10
7.1
0
Under 15
15-24.999
25-34.999
35-49.999
50-74.999
75+
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce. using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population
Survey supplements.
³Although the Census Bureau collected data on household income in $5,000 increments up to $35,000, this report depicts
changes in wider income bands. Since the latest ceiling for poverty income is $13,300 for a family of three and $17,000 for a
family of four, it seemed appropriate to set the first breakpoint at $15,000.
9
All three income ranges starting at $35,000 had the same 17 point gain from 1998 to
2000. Households with income between $35,000 and $49,999 achieved a 46.1% Internet
penetration rate in 2000, up from 29.0% in 1998. Households with incomes between $50,000
and $74,999 went from 43.3% to 60.9%, while those at $75,000 and above climbed from 60.3%
to 77.7%. With the same point gain but starting from much lower initial levels, the $35,000-
$49,999 and the $50,000-$74,999 income groups had larger expansion rates.
Geographic Areas Show Different Rates of Increase
Different areas of the country showed different rates of growth in household Internet
penetration at incomes below $75,000. At the highest income level ($75,000 and higher)
household penetration was relatively equal in all geographic areas at 77%.
For households earning less than $15,000 annually, rural households had the lowest
penetration rate at 11.3%. However, that rate is more than double what it was for the same group
of households in 1998 (at 4.5%). In other locations, however, the household penetration rate for
the lowest income group is higher, even if the rate of growth is lower. In urban areas, for
example, 13.2% of lowest-income households had Internet access, an increase of 5.5 percentage
points (72.3% higher than for 1998 levels). Central city households with incomes below
$15,000 achieved a 13.5% penetration rate in 2000, a 75.3% increase from 1998.
CHECK Rural areas at all income levels showed the highest percentage increases. In
addition to the 148.8% for the lowest income group, households with incomes between $15,000
and $34,999 achieved increases of more than 126% per year. Increases in Internet access across
all income levels in other regions were less spectacular, but all showed improvement at varying
rates. In urban areas, for example, households with incomes between $10,000 and $19,999 each
achieved an increase of 92% in 2000 over their 1998 access rates. Central city households,
however, had lower increases year-to-year. The household income brackets with the highest
percentage increases were the group with less than $15,000 income, which achieved a 75%
increase, to a 13.5% penetration level, and the group between $15,000 and $24,999, which had a
64% increase, achieving a 20.7% access level for 2000.
Low-Income Households Show Computer Ownership Gains
Almost one-fifth (19.2%) of households in the lowest income bracket (under $15,000 per
year) now own computers, an increase of 4.7 percentage points from the 14.5% figure in
December 1998. Overall, households at the lowest income levels increased their ownership of
computers by approximately one-third in August 2000 over the December 1998 levels -- the
greatest change registered by any income bracket.
10
Figure I-7: Percent of U.S. Households with a Computer
By Income ($000s), 1998 and 2000
100
1998
2000
90
86.3
79.9
80
73.2
70
66.3
58.6
Percent of U.S. Households
60
50.2
50
44.6
40
35.8
30.1
30
23.7
19.2
20
14.5
10
0
Under 15
15-24.999
25-34.999
35-49.999
50-74.999
75+
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce. using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population
Survey supplements.
At other income levels, 30.1% of households in the $15,000-$24,999 bracket owned
computers in 2000, a 27% increase over 1998. The next fastest growing income bracket for
computer ownership was in the $25,000-$34,999 category. In that group, 44.6% of households
own a computer, an increase of 25% from the 35.8% penetration rate in 1998. Among
geographic areas, 17.0% of rural households at the lowest income level own a computer,
contrasted with 19.9% of households with less than $15,000 income in urban areas and in central
cities.
At the highest income level of more than $75,000, 86.3% of households have a computer,
up from 79.9% in 1998. The ownership rate in central cities (83.7%) trailed the national average
at that income.
For all three income categories above $35,000, rural households were as likely as their
urban peers to have a computer at home.
Data relating to computer ownership by income can be found in the Appendix, Charts - _-
C. Education Level
The education level of the reference person or householder also helps to explain the
difference in home computer and Internet access. Better educated adults are more likely to use
and become familiar with computers and the Internet at work or through their school experiences.
In December 1998, 53.1% of households headed by a person with education beyond college, had
11
Internet access. That surpassed the access rate for households headed by a person with a
bachelor's degree (46.8%), those with some college experience (30.2%), those with some
college experience (16.3%), and those with less than a high school diploma (5.0%).
Figure I-8: Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access
By Education 1998 and 2000
80
1998
69.9
0
2000
70
64.0
60
53.0
49.0
50
46.8
Percent of U.S. Household
40
29.9
30.2
30
20
16.3
11.7
10
5.0
0
Less than high school
High school
Some college
Bachelor's degree
Post graduate
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce, using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey
supplements.
The same patterns existed in August 2000, although rates have soared for all educational
levels in the last 20 months. Of households headed by someone with post-college education,
69.9% had Internet access. That compares to households headed by someone with a college
degree alone (66.0%), those with some college experience (49.0%), those educated beyond high
school but no college degree (29.9%), and those with less than a high school degree (11.7%).
Once again, the 1998-2000 expansion rates were highest but point gains the lowest
among those that started off with lower rates in 1998, that is the less educated. For example,
Internet access expanded by 135% for those with less than a high school education, by 62% for
those with some college, and by 32% for those with post college education.
The median level of education among adult family heads is some college. This group had
a larger point gain over the last twenty months - 19 points - than households in the two higher
education categories with 17 point gains each.
The interplay between education and income levels is worth examining more closely.
Although both of these factors are linked to Internet access, as we have seen, they are also linked
to each other. In terms of home Internet access rates, the ratio of the highest group to the lowest
is more than five to one for both the income and education categories in Table 2. Since the two
are SO correlated, we have examined whether just one factor is dominant and the other represents
a misleading correlation, or whether both are independently associated with Internet access.
12
Figure 8 indicates that both income and education are independently associated with
Internet access. Although the average Internet access rate for incomes of $75,000 and greater is
77.7%, it ranges from 82% for those with college degree or more down to 51% for those with
less than a high school education. Likewise, households with incomes between $15,000 and
$34,999 had an average access rate of 28%, ranging from 46% for college or more down to 11%
for less than high school. The same wide disparities occur within education categories. For
example, among households in which a financially responsible adult had some schooling beyond
high school but not a college degree, home Internet access reached 76% in the over $75,000
income group but only 26% in the under $15,000 income group. Among households with
incomes below $15,000 and less than a high school education, only 4% had Internet access at
home.
Figure I-9: Percent of Households with Home Internet Access
By Income and Education, 2000
90
80
70
60
Percent of U.S. Households
50
40
30
20
College degree or more
10
Some college
0
High school
$75,000+
Less than high school
$35,000-
74,999
$15,000-
34,999
Under
$15,000
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of
Commerce, using U.S. Bureau of the Census
Current Population Survey supplements.
Once again, groups with higher initial adoptions rates generally had large point goins but lower
than average expansion rates, as shown in Table 2. Those with the lowest incomes and education
had much lower initial home Internet rates in 1998; however, they had the largest expansion
rates. Although the expansion rate for the country was 58%, no group with post high school
education and incomes above $35,000 had expansion rates that large. Among those with at least
a college degree, only those with the lowest household incomes had expansion rates above the
national average.
The largest point gains (from 20 to 22 points) were registered by those with incomes
above $75,000 and less than a college degree and those with $35,000 to $74,999 in income and
some college education. Indeed, households with incomes more than $75,000 and at least a
13
college degree have reached the inevitable flattening stage of the "S-Curve." Their 16.3 point
gain leaves that group more than four-fifth (83.6%) of the way to 100%.
4. Race/Ethnic Background
Between December 1998 and August 2000, there has also been a surge in uptake of
Internet and computer access among households of different ethnic and racial origins.⁴
Figure I-10: Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access
By Race / Hispanic Origin, 1998 and 2000
60
56.8
1998
2000
50
46.1
40
36.0
Percent of U.S. Households
29.8
30
23.5
23.6
20
12.6
11.2
10
0
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
API non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce. using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population
Survey supplements.
Households of Asian-Pacific Islander origin have maintained the greatest Internet penetration at
56.8% in 2000. This group has also experienced the most dramatic growth in home Internet
access in the last two years: an increase of 20.8 percentage points (from 36.0% in 1998). White
households continued to have the second highest rate of access at 46.1% and experienced a
growth of 16.3 percentage points (from 29.8% in 1998).
4 Persons of Hispanic origin are determined through self-identification by origin or descent. Persons of Hispanic
origin are those who indicated that their origin was Mexican-American, Chicano, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
Central or South American, or other Hispanic. People of Hispanic ethnicity can be of any race. In the tabulations
throughout this analysis, people of Hispanic origin are grouped as Hispanic and excluded from the race categories;
e.g., "Whites" should be read as "Whites, non-Hispanic" and "Black" should be read as "Black, non-Hispanic." We
recognize that there is significant variation in Internet access and computer ownership within each of these
categories.
14
At the other end of the spectrum, Black and Hispanic households continue to experience the
lowest Internet penetration rates (at 23.5% and 23.6%, respectively).⁵ Internet uptake by Black
and Hispanic households has been strong in the last two years, however. Between December
1998 and August 2000, access among Black households doubled from 11.2% in 1998 to 23.5% in
2000, a gain of 12.3 percentage points. Hispanic households' access increased 11 percentage
points (from 12.6% in 1998 to 23.6% in 2000).
Figure I-11: Rate of Growth of Internet Penetration
By Race / Hispanic Origin, 1998 to 2000
120
110
100
87
80
60
58
55
40
20
0
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
API non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce, using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey supplements.
Revise several figures to reflect edits to
Although the percentage point change
accompanying paragraph
for Blacks and Hispanics was not as high as
that for Asian-Pacific Islanders or Whites,
their rates of growth between 1998 and 2000 were striking. Internet access among Black
households more than doubled (a 110% increase) between 1998 and 2000, while Hispanic
households' access grew 87% in the same period. This compares to a growth rate of 55% for
White households and 58% for Asian-Pacific Islander households.
⁵This report does not include separate data on American Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos (AIAE) because the sampled
population from that group is too small for credible results. Last month, for the first time in its long-running reports
on poverty and income, the Census Bureau did include results for AIAE, but only by pooling the last three years of
data collected. We do not have three years of data collected on a comparable basis to produce separate numbers for
AIAE. Data for AIAE households can be found, however, in the public use file which can be found at
www.ntia.doc.gov and at www.bls.census.gov/cps/cpsmain.htm.
15
Internet access among all households remains strongly affected by geography and income
level. With regard to geography, almost all households have a slightly higher Internet penetration
rate in urban areas (48.3% for Whites, 24.0% for Blacks, and 23.9% for Hispanics). Households
in rural areas, on the other hand, have experienced significantly lower penetration rates (40.9% for
Whites, and 19.9% for Blacks and Hispanics). The notable exception is Asian-Pacific Islander
households, which have a far higher Internet penetration rate in rural areas (62.1%) than their
national average (56.8%) or rate for urban areas (56.6%).
Income also affects whether households of different ethnic and racial backgrounds have
Internet access. Households earning above $75,000 are highly likely to have Internet access
(78.6% for Whites, 70.9% for Blacks, 63.7% for Hispanics, and 81.6% for Asian/Pacific
Islanders). The rates of connectivity decline significantly as income declines, although less so for
Asian-Pacific Islander households. While Hispanics and Blacks are particularly unlikely to have
Internet access at incomes below $15,000 (5.2% and 6.4%, respectively), 33.2% of Asian-Pacific
Islander households in that lowest income bracket have Internet access.
Because income and education are such important factors in whether households have
Internet access, some have wondered whether those factors might fully explain the observed gaps
between the national average and the rates for Blacks and Hispanics. Those two groups as a
whole have lower incomes and lower education levels than the national average. Because lower
incomes and lower education levels are associated with lower Internet access, Blacks and
Hispanics would be expected to have lower rates of home Internet access.
Differences in overall income and educational levels of Blacks and Hispanics do not fully
account, however, for their lower levels of home Internet access. After removing the effects of
lower levels of income and educational attainment with shift-share analysis,⁶ we observe that: (1)
roughly half of the gap remains; (2) both groups made roughly the same gains over the last 20
months as the national average; and (3) both groups, on this adjusted basis for August 2000, had
substantially surpassed the national average for December 1998. Figure 11 depicts the results of
this shift-share analysis. In August 2000, both Blacks and Hispanics had home Internet access 18
points below the national average. The effects of having levels of income and education lower
than the national average, however, accounted for 8 percentage points of the gap for Blacks and
for 11 percentage points of the gap for Hispanics.
°In this shift-share analysis, we use the actual Internet access rates for each of the possible combinations of income
and education levels provided in the Census data for Blacks and Hispanics separately. We then calculate what the
Internet access rate among Blacks and Hispanics would have been if the share of Blacks and Hispanics in each of
the income-education combinations had been the same as the national average.
16
Figure I-12: Income and Education Differences Account for Half of
the Gap between Blacks and Hispanics and the National Average
Blacks '98
11.2
6.3
Hispanics '98
12.6
7.8
Nation '98
26.2
Blacks '00
23.5
8.1
Hispanics '00
23.6
11.1
Nation '00
41.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Actual Rate
Adjmt for Inc & Educ
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce. using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey supplements.
Over the 20 months from December 1998 to August 2000, the share of homes online rose
by 12 points for Blacks, by 11 points for Hispanics and by 15 points for the country as a whole.
However, on an income and education adjusted basis, Blacks and Hispanics each rose by 14
points, which is equivalent to the national gain on a statistical basis. The 32% penetration rates
for Blacks and the 35% for Hispanics on an adjusted basis for August 2000, while far short of the
national average of 42%, are both well above the national rate of 26% in December 1998.
The Internet Divide Continues
Significant discrepancies have continued to widen between most racial groups. Between
October 1997 and December 1998, the gap between White and Black households grew 5.1
percentage points, from a 13.5 percentage point difference in 1997 to a 18.6 percentage point
difference in 1998. In the 20 month period between December 1998 and August 2000, the divide
between White and Black households increased 4 percentage points, resulting in a percentage
point difference of 22.6 points between White and Black households. The gap between White and
Hispanic households grew 4.7 percentage points between 1997 and 1998, and then continued to
widen even further (by 5.3 percentage points) between 1998 and 2000.
Between Asian-Pacific Islanders and Whites, the gap grew from 6.2 percentage points in
1998 to 10.7 percentage points in 2000. Because there is no data for Asian-Pacific Islanders from
1997, we cannot determine if the gap has continued to widen over time.
17
While the growth in the Internet divide is troublesome, the high rates of growth for Blacks
and Hispanics suggest that, in time, this widening will subside. If computer ownership provides
any pattern, we may soon see some stabilization and perhaps even narrowing of the Internet
divide.
The Computer Divide Has Stabilized
Figure I-13: Percent of U.S. Households with Computer
By Race / Hispanic Origin, 1998 and 2000
70
65.6
1998
2000
60
55.7
55.0
50
46.6
Percent of U.S. Households
40
32.6
33.7
30
25.5
23.2
20
10
0
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
API non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce, using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population
Survey supplements.
Households of different ethnic and racial backgrounds also had disparate rates of
ownership of computers. As with Internet access, households of Asian-Pacific Islander descent
continue to exhibit the highest penetration rates (65.6%), followed by White households (55.7%),
Hispanics (33.7%), and Blacks (32.6%).7
⁷This report does not include separate data on American Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos (AIAE) because the sampled
population from that group is too small for credible results. Last month, for the first time in its long-running reports
on poverty and income, the Census Bureau did include results for AIAE, but only by pooling the last three years of
data collected. We do not have three years of data collected on a comparable basis to produce separate numbers for
AIAE. Data for AIAE households can be found, however, in the public use file which can be found at
www.ntia.doc.gov and at www.bls.census.gov/cps/cpsmain.htm.
18
All ethnic groups experienced comparable increases in computer penetration since 1998:
ownership in 2000 was 10.6 percentage points higher for Asian-Pacific Islanders, 9.4 percentage
points higher for Blacks, 9.1 points higher for Whites, and 8.2 points higher for Hispanics.
As with Internet access, computer ownership is strongly influenced by income and
geography. Households earning more than $75,000 are consistently likely to own computers:
87.0% for White households, 86.9% for those of Asian-Pacific Islander descent, 83.4% for
Blacks, and 76.1% for Hispanics. The computer divide becomes more pronounced at lower
income levels, although less so for households of Asian-Pacific Islander descent. At incomes less
than $15,000, Black households and Hispanic households are particularly unlikely to have
computers (11.5% and 12.5%), compared to White households (22.8%) and Asian-Pacific
Islander households (39.4%).
Geography also plays a role in a household's likelihood of owning a computer. In general,
those in rural areas are less likely to own computers (51.8% for Whites, 28.8% for Hispanics, and
27.5% for Blacks), while households in urban areas exceed the national average (57.3% for
Whites, 34.2% for Hispanics, and 33.3% for Blacks). The sole exception to this trend is
households of Asian-Pacific Islander descent, which have higher computer penetration rates in
rural areas (70.3%) than in urban areas (65.3%).
Perhaps most significantly, the data show that computer penetration for White, Black, and
Hispanic households have risen by comparable amounts SO that the gaps in computer penetration
between these households have stabilized. While the periods between 1994 and 1998 saw a
widening gap between White and Black, and White and Hispanic, households, the computer
divide has remained unchanged at 23 points for both 1998 and 2000. Nor do we have evidence of
a change in the White-Hispanic gap in home computers. The marginal change in that gap from the
21.1 percentage point difference estimated for 1998 to the 22.0 percentage point difference for
2000 falls within the margin of error for such estimates.
Data relating to computer ownership among households of different races and ethnic
origins can be found in the Appendix, Charts -
E. Household Type
The make-up of a household -- such as the presence or absence of children, and whether
there are one or two parents -- significantly determines that household's likelihood of having
Internet and computer access. The impact of this factor is most obvious with regard to Internet
access. Even here, however, single-parent households have made great strides since December
1998, and at higher income levels are catching up to dual-parent households. All data relating to
Internet access and computer ownership by household type can be found in the Appendix, Charts
19
Internet Access Is Still Highly Influenced by Children with Two Parents,
Although Single Parents are Making Gains
Households with children and two parents have much higher rates of Internet access that
other family types. As in 1998, married couples with children under 18 are far more likely to
have Internet access (60.6%) than married couples without children (43.2%). This high
connectivity rate for couples with children holds true regardless of whether they live in urban
areas (61.5%), rural areas (58.3%), or central cities (55.1%). Those in "non-family households"
(single or unmarried people), on the other hand, are the least likely to have Internet access (at
28.1%). Of all household types, non-family households in rural areas are the least likely to have
Internet access (at 20.2%).
Figure I-14: Percent of U.S. Households with Computer
By Family Type, 1998 and 2000
70
1998
2000
60.6
60
50
43.2
Percent of U.S. Households
39.3
40
35.7
30.0
30
27.2
28.1
19.5
20
17.5
15.0
10
0
Married couple w/ Male household w/ Female household Family households
Non-family
child <18
child <18
w/ child <18
w/o child
households
Source: NTIA and ESA, U.S. Department of Commerce, using U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population
Survey supplements.
Having one or two parents also makes a significant difference on whether a family has
Internet access. Two-parent households are nearly twice as likely to have Internet access as
single-parent households (60.6% for dual-parent, versus 35.7% for male-headed households with
children less than 18 years of age, and 30.0% for female-headed households with children less
than 18 years of age). Female-headed households in central cities are particularly unlikely to have
Internet access (22.8%), as are male-headed households in rural areas (30.3%).
20
The differences among household types are most distinct at the middle income levels. At
incomes below $15,000, on the other hand, the disparities diminish somewhat: 19.7% for dual-
parent households; 14.5% for male-headed households; 12.6% for female-headed households;
13.5% for family households without children; and 11.4% for non-family households. Similarly,
the gap narrows at incomes above $75,000: 84.4% for dual-parent households; 69.4% for male-
headed households; 67.9% for female-headed households; 74.5% for family households without
children; and 68.4% for non-family households.
While single parents trail significantly behind two-parents households in Internet access,
they have shown the most change since 1998. Connectivity among female-headed households
literally doubled between 1998 and 2000 (from 15.0% to 30.0%). Connectivity among male-
headed households also grew substantially (by 83%) from 19.5% in 1998 to 35.7% in 2000. In
time then, the gap between single and dual-parent households may close, as is already becoming
apparent at the highest income level.
Computer Penetration Highest for Dual-Parent Households at Highest
Income Level
As with Internet access, computers are far more likely to be in households with children
and two parents. Married couples with children under 18 years og age own computers at much
higher rates (73.2%) than married couples without children (52.5%), male-headed households
(45.6%), female-headed households (42.9%), or "non-family" (single or unmarried) households
(34.6%). Despite these differences, the discrepancies among these groups are less dramatic than
with Internet access, perhaps because computers are more prevalent as an older and more widely-
adopted technology. As with Internet access, single-parent families have also shown the greatest
rate of growth in the last two years (30.3% for male-headed households, and 35.3% for female-
headed households), suggesting that the gap between dual-parent and single-parent families may
begin to close in time.
Again, location exacerbates existing differences. Female-headed households and male-
headed households in central cities are much less likely to own computers (34.9% and 43.1%,
respectively) than those in rural or urban areas. By contrast, computer penetration declines in
rural areas for households without children (48.0% for family households without children, and
26.2% for single/unmarried households). Households without children may be experiencing
higher computer rates in urban areas and central cities areas because they may be more likely to
be urban professionals.
Income also has a significant effect on computer ownership. Particularly notable is the
high penetration rate of computers in families earning $75,000 or more. Dual-parent families in
this high-income bracket have a 93.1% penetration rate. That is, nearly every household falling
into this group has a computer. Computer penetration is also high for other household types at
this income level: 84.2% for male-headed households; 82.3% for female-headed households;
82.8% for households without children; and 76.6% for non-family households.
21
Computer penetration drops dramatically at the lowest income levels for almost all
households types. The significant exception is for married couples with children: one-third
(33.3%) of these families still own computers even at incomes below $15,000. This relatively
high penetration rate suggests that computers are becoming an affordable and desirable staple for
many families, even for those in the lowest income bracket.
III. HOUSEHOLDS WITH COMPUTERS AND INTERNET ACCESS BY STATE
All states experienced growth in household computer penetration and Internet access
between December 1998 and August 2000. Particularly high expansion rates occurred for
Delaware (18.1%), Connecticut (16.6%), and West Virginia (14.5%) in computers, and Delaware
(25.6%), Wyoming (21.4%), and Connecticut (10.4%) for Internet.
Computer ownership and Internet access also vary significantly by state. Utah registers
the highest level of households with computers (66.1%) while Mississippi is at the other end of
the spectrum at 37.2% (See Table A). Internet access ranges from New Hampshire (56.0%) to
Mississippi (26.3%) (See Table B). The state penetration rates are listed alphabetically rather than
numerically from highest to lowest penetration levels because confidence intervals do not permit
precise rankings.
Although there is significant variation in penetration rates among states, that variation has
diminished somewhat in the last 20 months. The "gap" between the highest and lowest computer
penetration by state has decreased between December 1998 (62.4% vs. 25.7%, or 36.7 percentage
points) and August 2000 (66.1% vs. 37.2%, or 28.9 percentage points). Similarly, the Internet gap
has decreased between December 1998 (44.1% vs. 13.6%, or 30.5 percentage points) and August
2000 (56.0% vs. 26.3%, or 29.7 percentage points).
22
Table 1. Percent of Households with Computers, by State: 2000
(Numbers in thousands.)
State
Total Households
Percent with Computers
90% Confidence Interval
Alabama
1,742
44.2
2.83
Alaska
219
64.8
2.96
Arizona
1,832
53.5
2.70
Arkansas
1,041
37.3
2.72
California
12,129
56.6
1.20
Colorado
1,636
62.6
2.73
Connecticut
1,235
60.4
3.29
Delaware
290
58.6
3.21
Florida
6,235
50.1
1.48
Georgia
3,066
47.1
2.52
Hawaii
386
52.4
3.61
Idaho
491
54.5
2.71
Illinois
4,566
50.2
1.74
Indiana
2,347
48.8
2.86
Iowa
1,136
53.6
2.95
Kansas
1,010
55.8
2.96
Kentucky
1,614
46.2
2.82
Louisiana
1,650
41.2
2.78
Maine
508
54.7
3.13
Maryland
2,076
53.7
3.04
Massachusetts
2,407
53.0
2.17
Michigan
3,709
51.5
1.86
Minnesota
1,799
57.0
2.91
Mississippi
1,059
37.2
2.81
Missouri
2,155
52.6
2.98
Montana
360
51.5
2.79
Nebraska
637
48.5
3.04
Nevada
690
48.8
2.99
New Jersey
3,091
54.3
1.92
New York
6,971
48.7
1.34
New Hampshire
474
63.7
3.22
New Mexico
667
47.6
2.89
North Carolina
3,047
45.3
2.07
North Dakota
246
47.5
3.01
Ohio
4,351
49.5
1.81
Oklahoma
1,338
41.5
2.69
Oregon
1,280
61.1
2.99
Pennsylvania
4,720
48.4
1.68
Rhode Island
402
47.9
3.23
South Carolina
1,557
43.3
2.98
South Dakota
289
50.4
2.87
Tennessee
2,220
45.7
2.90
Texas
7,353
47.9
1.52
Utah
707
66.1
2.76
Vermont
242
53.7
3.21
Virginia
2,722
53.9
2.74
Washington
2,323
60.7
2.93
Washington, DC
254
48.8
2.97
West Virginia
744
42.8
2.65
Wisconsin
2,031
50.9
2.86
23
Wyoming
193
58.2
2.91
Table 2. Percent of Households with Internet Access, by State: 2000
(Numbers in thousands.)
State
Total Households
Percent with Internet
90% Confidence Interval
Alabama
1,742
35.5
2.73
Alaska
219
55.6
3.08
Arizona
1,832
42.5
2.68
Arkansas
1,041
26.5
2.49
California
12,129
46.7
1.21
Colorado
1,636
51.8
2.82
Connecticut
1,235
51.2
3.37
Delaware
290
50.7
3.26
Florida
6,235
43.2
1.46
Georgia
3,066
38.3
2.46
Hawaii
386
43.0
3.58
Idaho
491
42.3
2.69
Illinois
4,566
40.1
1.71
Indiana
2,347
39.4
2.79
Iowa
1,136
39.0
2.88
Kansas
1,010
43.9
2.96
Kentucky
1,614
36.6
2.72
Louisiana
1,650
30.2
2.59
Maine
508
42.6
3.11
Maryland
2,076
43.8
3.03
Massachusetts
2,407
45.5
2.16
Michigan
3,709
42.1
1.84
Minnesota
1,799
43.0
2.91
Mississippi
1,059
26.3
2.56
Missouri
2,155
42.5
2.95
Montana
360
40.6
2.74
Nebraska
637
37.0
2.93
Nevada
690
41.0
2.94
New Hampshire
474
56.0
3.33
New York
6,971
39.8
1.31
New Jersey
3,091
47.8
1.92
New Mexico
667
35.7
2.78
North Carolina
3,047
35.3
1.99
North Dakota
246
37.7
2.93
Ohio
4,351
40.7
1.78
Oklahoma
1,338
34.3
2.59
Oregon
1,280
50.8
3.07
Pennsylvania
4,720
40.1
1.64
Rhode Island
402
38.8
3.15
South Carolina
1,557
32.0
2.81
South Dakota
289
37.9
2.78
Tennessee
2,220
36.3
2.80
Texas
7,353
38.3
1.48
Utah
707
48.4
2.92
Vermont
242
46.7
3.22
Virginia
2,722
44.3
2.73
24
Washington, DC
254
39.6
2.90
Washington
2,323
49.7
3.00
West Virginia
744
34.3
2.54
Wisconsin
2,031
40.6
2.81
Wyoming
193
44.1
2.93
25
IV. 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.⁸ 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 on a large scale.
Survey respondents who stated that they were online at home were asked whether they
accessed the Internet through regular "dial-up" telephone lines or whether they had opted for a
higher-speed form of connectivity. Where respondents indicated they had obtained a faster
connection, they were also asked to identify the type of access used - - Digital Subscriber Lines
(DSL), Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), cable modems, wireless, or other. Today a
relatively small proportion of households access the Internet at higher speeds. This survey will
serve as an empirical baseline for what is expected to be significant growth. Data relating to
speed of Internet access can be found in the Appendix, Charts -
Survey results indicate 10.7% of online households (about 4.5% of all U.S. households)
have 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.
Figure I-15: High Speed Internet Access, 2000
Percent of U.S. Households with Internet Access
other telephony
10.9%
satellite/wireless
4.6%
cable
50.8%
DSL
33.7%
The term "broadband" is used in this study to include the two most common technologies, Digital Subscriber Line
(DSL) and cable modems, as well as such technologies as Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN). These
technologies usually feature broadband capabilities although some applications or connections may possess speeds
lower than the 200 kilobits per second that the Federal Communications Commission defines as broadband.
Although a technology that appears to be on the brink of widespread high-speed capabilities, wireless is more often
narrowband in its current applications.
26
Among total broadband households, the overwhelming majority either procure cable
modems (50.8%) or DSL (33.7%). 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, 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 (62.3%) over DSL (24.5%).9
Broadband penetration differs by location: 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.
Combining the two factors reveals that the West has both the nation's highest take rate in its
central city areas (13.0%) and the lowest rate in its rural environs (5.9%).
Figure I-17:
High Speed Internet Access by Geography 2000
14
12.2
11.8
12
10.7
10
8
7.3
percent
6
4
2
0
U.S.
central city
urban
rural
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 $5,000 to $9,999, only 6.5% 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
take rate. The lowest bracket (under $5,000) breaks the pattern, yielding one of the highest
9
A separate discussion of the roll out of broadband services is contained in the April, 2000, report Advanced
Telecommunications in Rural America: The Challenge of Bringing Broadband Service to All Americans produced
by the Commerce Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That report found DSL and cable modem
services are more readily available in urban areas.
27
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%) significantly 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 just below seniors
(45-54 years) can claim one of the highest penetrations (11.2%). Internet access speeds vary by
race and origins as well, with minorities registering both the highest and lowest diffusion rates.
Asian-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 act as important influences on broadband
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.
V. NON-INTERNET HOUSEHOLDS
As of August 2000, 41.5% of the nation's 105 million households, or 43.6 million homes,
have Internet access. Thus, 58.5% of households - - or 61.6 million homes- - 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 38.6% 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.
A. 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 65.5% higher
than the 2000 figure.
28
During the 2000 survey, "never-connected" households provided a number of reasons for
not accessing the Internet at home. 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 is 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 (10%), 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 five percentage points.
Figure I-18
Reasons for U.S. Households with a Computer/WebTV
Never Accessing the Internet
Percent of U.S. Households, 2000
Concern w/children
5%
Computer not capable
Can use eisewhere
7%
10%
Problems w/ISP
Lack of computer knowledge
1%
2%
Not enough time
Future access planned
9%
3%
Not useful
5%
Not user friendly
4%
Dont want it
31%
Cost, too expensive
17%
Other
6%
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" (30.0%) 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 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" 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-
29
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 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 besides female-headed families embrace these 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 (25.5%, 16.5%), unemployed households (30.9%, 28.9%)
experienced a major swap of rankings compared to the previous survey (38.2%, 13.3%).
B. Why Households with Computers Have Discontinued Internet Access
Over the last 20 months, the number of Internet "drop-offs" (i.e, those households that
once had but do not currently have electronic access) fell slightly, from 4.1 million to 4.0 million
households, a reduction of 3.5%.
Respondents to the August 2000 survey cited several principal reasons for their
households' decisions to discontinue their Internet access. (See Chart .) The leading factor
noted was "no longer owns computers" (17.0%). Next in importance were "can use anywhere"
(12.8%) and "cost, too expensive" (12.0%). 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." "Other" reasons - - those that
are too heterogeneous to be included elsewhere - were also given by respondents (9.8%).
[INSERT PIE CHART]
These results reflect changes from the answers given in the December 1998 survey. In
1998, respondents identified "cost, too expensive" (15.0%) as the most important reason for
dropping off the network. In 1998, the reason "no longer owns computer" ranked second
(14.0%) and "can use anywhere" ranked fourth (9.0%). "Not enough time to use it" registered the
same percentage (10.0%) in both surveys but slipped from third in 1998 to fourth in 2000.
Respondents accorded "computer requires repair" about double the response rate from December
1998 (5.0%) to August 2000 but had the same ranking (sixth). "Don't want it" was the fifth most
popular reason in 1998 (7.0%).
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, Charts -
As a reason for discontinuing Internet access, "no longer owns a computer" ranks number
one and cost is the number to 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."
30
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 diploma 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 was "no longer owns computer": male
householders with children, female householders with children, and non-family households.
All age categories rated "no longer owns computer" as the most important reason, ranging
from 21.7% for under-25 householders to 13.0% for 35-44-year-old householders. The second-
ranked reasons varied greatly: "can use elsewhere" for under-25 and 25-34 year olds; "cost" for
35-44 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.
Figure I-19
Reasons for U.S. Households Discontinuing Internet Access
Percent of U.S. Households, 2000
Concern w/children
2%
Computer capacity issues
1%
Cost, too expensive
12%
Computer requires repair
10%
Moved
Dont want it
6%
10%
Not enough time
No longer owns computer
10%
17%
Can use elsewhere
Problems W/ISP
13%
3%
Other
Not user friendly
10%
2%
Not useful
4%
31
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
4
Divider Title:
Part II
ACCESS TO THE INTERNET BY INDIVIDUALS
Introduction
As of August 2000, 116.5 million Americans were online-31.9 million more than there were
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 increase holds true at all income and
education levels, for all age groups, for both men and women, for the employed and the
unemployed, as well as 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- have participated in this dramatic increase in Internet usage,
however, they still lag behind the national average.
Individuals who are over 50 years old are among the least likely to be Internet users. The
Internet penetration rate in this group was only 29.6% in 2000. Age, however, is only part of the
story. In August 2000, individuals age 50 and older who are in the labor force were almost three
times as likely to be Internet users if they were in the labor force.
In August 2000, Internet penetration rates were virtually identical for men and women in the
aggregate.
Internet access from locations outside the home appears to be a factor in the increases in Internet
penetration rates for some groups that are behind the national average. Nationwide, a greater
share of people had Internet access from their homes in August 2000 than in December 1998.
However, Black and Hispanic Internet users, however, were more likely than the other Internet
users to rely exclusively on Internet access from outside their homes.
Most people who had access to the Internet from outside their homes reported getting access at
work or at school. The unemployed individuals were more likely than the employed to report
accessing the Internet from another person's computer, and libraries.
E-mail is still the Internet's "killer application"-79.9 % of internet users reported e-mail.
Among other online activities online shopping and bill paying saw the fastest growth. The low
income unemployed were the most likely to report using the internet to look for jobs.
These estimates are based on individual use data. Person-based data offer a more complete
understanding of ways in individuals use the Internet. They offer the ability to examine
demographic characteristics that are unique to individuals with no logical correspondence at the
household level. These demographic variables include age, gender, level of educational
attainment. These offer insight into where individuals have Internet access---at home,
2
somewhere outside the home, or both. And, where individuals are accessing the Internet from a
location away from their home we can get some 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. However, the person-based data and household-based data yield related,
but not necessarily identical, rates of Internet penetration for factors that are common to the two
data sets, such as income and race. Why these differences occur is explained in Box 1.
In the future person-based data are likely to become a critical complement to the household-
based measures of Internet penetration. We are already seeing the emergence of a world were
Internet access is mobile. It travels with the individual rather than being a function of the
physical place where the individual is. For years, laptop computers have offered processing
power and Internet access to individuals wherever they happened to be-at home, in the office,
in hotels across the globe. Mobile devices, such as palm pilots and mobile phones, now offer
Internet access anywhere via wireless connections. Car makers are rolling out prototypes of
cars with Internet access. While one may argue that these devices will be targeted at the high
income individuals, this same argument was true of computers just a short time ago.
Furthermore, a number of countries (e.g., Japan, the Scandinavian countries) are seeing rapid
increases in mobile Internet penetration among the young people in their countries.
3
The Relationship Between the Household- and Person-Based Measures
Household surveys provide information on both entire households and the individual persons
within those households. The person data provides information on the number of people who
have access to the Internet at home, how many are using that access, the extent of access at
other locations, and the types of activities are they pursuing on the Internet.
As discussed in Part I, the number of households connected to the Internet rose from 26.2%
in December 1998 to 41.5% in August 2000. (See Figure xx.)
INSERT FIGURE WITH 4 PAIRS OF BARS ON INTERNET '98-'00
Since households with Internet connections tend to have more people than households
without them, the proportion of Americans living in homes with Internet access is somewhat
larger than the proportion of households connected. As shown in the second pair of bars in
Figure XX, the share of Americans in homes online has surged from 30.0% in December 1998
to 46.7% in August, a gain of almost a percentage point a month. At that rate, a majority of
Americans will have Internet access at home by the end of the year.
Only about three quarters of the people living in homes where there was Internet access were
actually using the Internet from home. As a result, the August survey found that only 35.7%
of Americans were actually using the Internet at home, up from 22.3% in December 1998.
(See third pair of bars in Figure xx.)
Another 8.7% of Americans in August were using the Internet but not from home. When
they are added to those who using the Internet from home, the total share the population
using the Internet from any location stood at 44.4% in August, up from 32.7% twenty months
earlier (fourth pair of bars in Figure xx)
4
I. Internet Penetration Among Individuals
In August 2000, 116.5 million Americans were online-31.9 million more than there were 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.
Age, and age combined with labor force participation for certain age groups, are key components
in Internet use. However, as can be seen in Figure XX, between December 1998 and August
2000 Internet use increased across the age distribution.
{Insert Figure C}
Income
Individuals who live in high Income households have higher rates of Internet penetration.
While individuals in all income groups were more likely to be Internet users in 2000 than in
1998, Internet penetration is greater in higher income brackets. (Figure XX.) Only 18.9% of
individuals who lived in households with an annual incomes of less than $15,000 dollars were
Internet users in August 2000. In contrast, 70.1% of people who lived in households where the
annual income was greater than $75,000 reported using the Internet. Middle income groups saw
the largest point gains while the lowest income groups had the fastest expansion rates.
{INSERT FIGURE X}
Race
Individuals with different racial and ethnic backgrounds still tend to use the Internet to differing
degrees. (Figure XX.) In August 2000, Whites were still the most likely to use the Internet,
followed by Asian/Pacific Islanders, Blacks, and Hispanics. During the 20 month period
between the two surveys, Whites gained 12.7 percentage points and Asian/Pacific Islanders
gained 13.6 percentage points in the share of their populations that had Internet access. In
contrast, Blacks gained 10.3 percentage points, and Hispanics gained 7.1 percentage points. In
December 1998, Blacks were 13.8 percentage points behind the national average and in August
2000 They were 15.1 percentage points behind. In December 1998, Hispanics were 16.2
percentage points behind the national average and in August 2000 they were 20.7 Percentage
points behind.
{INSERT FIGURE S}
The fact that the share of households with Internet connections does not directly map into
personal Internet use rates becomes clear in reviewing the data by race and Hispanic origin.
Although 57 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander households had Internet access, only 49 percent of
persons in that group were using the Internet. On the other hand, the rates of personal use were
higher for Whites and Blacks than their household connection rates. Among Whites, 46 percent
5
of their households had online connections but 50% of people were using the Internet
somewhere. The gap was even larger for Blacks: only 23.5% of their homes were online, but
29.3% of Black persons were using the Internet. Only for Hispanics were the two percentages
essentially the same at 23.6% and 23.7%.
INSERT 2 FIGURES ON HH ACCESS vs PERSONAL USE BY RACE/HISPANIC ORIGIN
Why do Whites have personal Internet usage rates at least as high as the rates for persons of
Asian and Pacific Islander background despite having rates of household connections 11 points
lower? Why do Blacks have comparable household rates to Hispanics but much higher personal
use rates. Three factors come into play: relative family size on and off the Internet, the share of
persons with home access who actually use the Internet at home, and the share of persons who
find Internet connections only outside the home. For Whites, the difference in average
household size online relative to those offline is much larger Whites also have the highest share
of people who live in homes with Internet access who actually make use of that access, while
Hispanics have the lowest share. Finally, Blacks have the highest share of people who access the
Internet only outside the home 10.4%, followed by Whites at 8.6%. Only 7-1/2% of Hispanics
and Asian/Pacific Islanders use the Internet exclusively outside the home.
Gender
In August 2000, Internet penetration rates were virtually identical for men and women in the
aggregate. In December 1998, 34.2% of men and 31.4% of women were using the Internet. By
August 2000, 44.6% of men and a statistically indistinguishable 44.2% of women were Internet
users.
Underlying the closing aggregate gender gap are some widening gender gaps by age. (Figure
XX.) For both surveys, in the early years of life boys and girls appear equally likely to be
Internet users. A small gap in favor of females in college age years widened by 2000. During
the years of prime labor force participation, men were more likely than women to be Internet
users in 1998. Twenty months later the situation had reversed for this group-in August 2000
women in their prime years in the workforce were more likely than men to be Internet users. For
older adults in both surveys, men were more likely than women to be online.
{INSERT FIGURE E}
In August 2000, males and females had very similar Internet penetration rates in all but one
race/ethnic group-Asian/Pacific Islanders. Among Asian/Pacific Islanders, males had higher
Internet penetration rates than females. (Figure XX)
{INSERT FIGURE F}
Educational Attainment
6
In both 1998 and 2000, Internet penetration is higher at higher levels of education. I Adults
whose highest level of education is at an elementary level have Internet penetrations rates of less
than 4%. People whose highest level of education is bachelors degree or more have the highest
Internet penetration (74.5%). (Figure XX)
{INSERT FIGURE XX}
Age
For the purpose of this analysis we look at age categories that roughly correspond to important
periods in peoples lives-Children (Age 3-8), Youth (Age 9-17), College/Early Work Force
(Age 18-24), Work Force (Age 25-49), and Late Work Force/Retirement (Age 50+). There has
been strong growth in the penetration rates for in all age categories, except children (Age 3-8).
(Figure XX) People over the age of 50 have the next lowest rate of Internet penetration in 2000
(29.6%) with a 10.3 percentage point increase over 1998. The remaining three age categories
have Internet penetration rates of higher than the national average (i.e., 44.4%).
{INSERT FIGURE D}
Age 3 to 8 Years
Children, not surprisingly, have the lowest Internet penetration rate in 2000 (15.3%) and the
smallest increase in penetration since 1998 (4.3 percentage points). In 2000, 15.7% of girls and
14.9 percent of boys in this age groups were Internet users.
The race/ethnicity patterns track the national penetration rate patterns-Whites (18.5%),
Asian/Pacific Islanders (14.4%), Blacks (10.2%), and Hispanics (8.7%).
Similarly, Internet penetration rates increase with household income. Children from households
where income is less than $15,000 had Internet penetration rate of 5.4% in 2000 - 9.9
percentage points behind the national average. At the other extreme, households with incomes
greater than $75,000 had an Internet penetration rate of 21.8%. (Table 2.)
Age 9 to 17 Years
Internet penetration rates pick up among youths (age 9-17). The national average for this age
groups was 43.0% in December 1998 and it increased to 53.4% in August 2000 (a 24 percent
growth in the penetration rate). Thus, the average penetration rate for this group is above the
national average in both December 1998 and August 2000.
I
Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education completed. Data shown
exclude individuals age 3 to 24 because there is a high probability that individuals in these
groups are still in school.
7
There was little difference in Internet penetration between boys (52.9%) and girls (53.9%) in
2000.
Again, race/ethnicity patterns are similar to the national average, with Whites (63.1%) and
Asian/Pacific Islanders (58.6%) showing higher penetration rates than Blacks (34.2%) and
Hispanics (31.4%). Blacks, however, saw relatively rapid growth in their penetration rate (63%)
from December 1998 to August 2000 compared with Asian/Pacific Islanders (45%) Hispanics
(33%) and Whites (20%).
Individuals who live in households where income is less than $15,000 (22.8%) and those who
live in households where income is between $15,000 and $24,999 (36.3%) have Internet
penetration rates below the national average. Individuals who live in households where income
is $25,000 or more have Internet penetration rates greater than the national average. (Table 3)
Age 18 to 24 Years
Individuals age 18 to 24 also saw Internet penetration rates for both December 1998 (44.3%) and
August 2000 (56.8%) that were above the national averages.
In this age group women (59.6%) had higher Internet penetration rates than men (54.1%) in
2000.
In August 2000, the Internet penetration rates for Black (41.5%) and Hispanics (32.4%) in this
age group are considerably higher than penetration rates for these race/ethnicity groups in the
population at large. However, these groups still lag Whites (65.0%) and Asian/Pacific Islanders
(72.9%). Of these two lagging groups, Blacks appear to be gaining ground relatively rapidly
with a growth in the penetration rate of 55% over the 20 month period. This compares to 30%
growth for Asian/Pacific Islander, 28% for Hispanics, and 25% for Whites.
In this age group individuals at all household income levels had Internet penetration rates close
to or above the Internet penetration rate for the population as a whole- Less than $15,000
(41.9%), $15,000 to $24,999 (43.5%), $25,000 to $34,999 (52.4%), $35,000 to $49,999 (59.9%),
$50,000 to $74,999 (67.4%), and $75,000 and above (78.2). This flattening of the income
gradient suggests that factors other than income drive Internet use among 18 to 24 year olds.
Age 25-49
Labor force participation appears to be an important component in Internet uptake for this
groups and even more so for individuals age 50 and older. We have separated these two age
brackets into two groups, those in the labor force and those outside the labor force.
²Labor force participation is a broader concept than employment status and is used here
because it captures the same concept as employment status, but less as likely to fluctuate
seasonally as the employment status measure in this data set. The Current Population Survey
8
into two groups, those in the labor force and those outside the labor force.²
In aggregate, the Internet penetration rate for 25 to 49 year olds was 55.4% up from 40.9% in
December 1998. Those in the labor force were more likely to be Internet users. Their Internet
penetration rate was 58.4% compared to 39.3% for those not in the labor force, in August 2000.
In both groups women were more likely than men to be Internet users, but the gap between the
genders is larger for those not in the labor force. In 2000, 60.8% of women and 56.2% of men
were Internet users among 25-49 year olds who were in the labor force. The penetration rate for
women is 42.6% and the penetration rate for men is 28.6% in to 2000.
In both groups Blacks and Hispanics lag the national average in Internet penetration, but Blacks
and Hispanics who are not in the labor force are farther behind. For those in the labor force, the
penetration rates for Blacks was 40.3% but for those not in the labor force it was 18.9% in
August 2000. Hispanics age 25 to 49 who were in the labor force had an Internet penetration rate
of 29.8%, while those not in the labor force had a penetration rate of 16.5%. It is worth noting
that Blacks had a 100% growth in their penetration rate over 1998 and Hispanics saw an 85%
increase in their penetration rate. This is consistent with aggregate patterns of faster growth in
the groups that lag behind.
As in the aggregate, Internet penetration rates increase with household income. For 25-49 year
olds in the labor force, Internet penetration rates exceed the national average at lower levels of
income. For example, in the aggregate Internet penetration rates exceed the national average
(44.4) in August 2000 when an individual's household income exceeded $35,000. For
individuals age 25-49 and in the labor force, Internet penetration exceeds the national average
when a persons income exceeds $25,000.
A similar pattern in terms of occurs educational attainment for 25-49 years both in and outside
the labor force. In aggregate Internet penetration levels exceed the national average for
individuals with "some college," but in 25-49 year olds internet penetration rates exceed the
national average for high school graduates.
Age 50 +
As in the previous age bracket we separate those age 50 and older into those in the labor force
and those not in the labor force. For those age 50 and older the importance of labor force
participation is even more striking than it was for those age 25 to 49.
²Labor force participation is a broader concept than employment status and is used here
because it captures the same concept as employment status, but less as likely to fluctuate
seasonally as the employment status measure in this data set. The Current Population Survey
data used to measure Internet penetration in this report are not seasonally adjusted and thus the
narrower measure of employment status may capture seasonal variations in employment.
9
{INSERT FIGURE CC}
Individuals who are over 50 years old are among the least likely to be Internet users-the Internet
penetration rate in this group was only 29.6% in 2000. In August 2000, however, individuals
age 50 and older who are in the labor force were almost three times as likely to be Internet users
if they were in the labor force. Figure XX reveals a wide gap in Internet use among those 50 and
over between those in the labor force (46.4%) and those out of the labor force (16.7%). This
indicates that it is not seniors as whole whose Internet penetration rates lag the rest of the
country, but senior who have retired or otherwise left the workforce.
Labor force participation is also a factor in the gender differences evident for individuals age 50
and older. In August 2000, men (46.0%) and women (46.8%) who were still in the labor force
were equally likely to be Internet users. However, men (18.1%) had higher Internet penetration
rates than women (15.6%) for those not in the labor force. This gender difference likely results
from higher labor force participation by men relative to women in those age group.
II. Location of Internet Access
Where an individual uses the Internet is another key factor in the Internet use equation. Whether
a person uses the Internet-at home, away from home, or both-offers a rough measure of the
quality of his or her Internet access. An individual who has Internet access at his or her home
likely has an opportunity to use the technology more intensely than if he or she uses it only at a
library or community center.
In August 2000, 25.0% of the population accessed the Internet only from home, an increase from
15.8% in December 1998. The share of the population accessing the Internet from both home
and outside the home also increased— from 6.5% to 10.7%. In contrast, access from only
outside the home declined from 10.5% to 8.7%.
{INSERT FIGURE A1}
The aggregate pattern of dominant and increasing access to the Internet from the home is not,
however, consistent across demographic groups. (Figure XX.) Although only 8.7% of Internet
users nationwide in August 2000 did not have access to the Internet at home, that is not the case
for all groups. Among Blacks 10.4% did not have Internet access at home.
{INSERT FIGURE A2}
Locations of Internet Access Outside the Home
People who use the Internet from outside the home get access from a variety of locations. The
most common non-home access site is an individual's place of work — -12.3% of the population
10
(and 23.9% of the people who held jobs) used the Internet at work in August 2000. "Someone
else's computer" (2.7%) was another possible place of access as were public libraries (1.9%).4
Similarly, work was the most frequently reported site of outside the home Internet access for
each of the race/ethnic groups Asian/Pacific Islanders (15.4%) and Whites (14,1%) and Whites
reported having access to the internet at work more often than Blacks (8.1%) and Hispanics
(5.6%). On the other hand, Blacks (2.9%) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (2.3) were more likely to
report having Internet access at public libraries than Whites (1.7%), Hispanics (1.7%).
Men (13.2%) were more likely than women (11.6%) to report having Internet access at work.
The likelihood of reporting work as place to access the Internet increase with household income.
In August 2000, 2.1% of individuals whose household incomes are less than $15,000 reported
accessing the Internet at work-this was 10.2 percentage points behind the national average of
12.3%. As household incomes rise, so does Internet access at work-4.0% for individuals with
house hold incomes between $15,000 and $24,999, 7.8% for individuals with household incomes
of $25,000 to $34,999, and 11.1% for those with household incomes from $35,000 to $49,999.
Individuals with household incomes between $50,000 to $74,999 (16.5%) and those with
household incomes greater than $75,000 (29.6%) reported work assess at rates higher than the
national average.
Internet access locations outside the home appear to be more important for unemployed than
those who had jobs. In August 2000, 4.3 percent of unemployed individuals reported accessing
the Internet from the public library compared to 1.8% of employed individuals and 1.7 percent of
those who were not in the labor force.
III. Online Activities
The most frequent online activity among Internet users in August 2000 was e-mail. (Figure XX.)
About 80% of people with Internet access reported regularly using e-mail. More than half of the
people online also used the Internet regularly to search for information. Making phone calls was
the least common online activity; less than 6% of Internet users reported regularly using the
3 Although schools, both "schools (K-12) and "other schools" appear to be important
locations of Internet access survey results are not shown. They rank second and third in most
frequently reported locations of outside the home Internet access. However, reported Internet
access from each of these locations appears to decline between 1998 and 2000. The authors
believe this is a function of seasonal factors-i.e., students who were not in school in August
when the 2000 survey was conducted-appear to be influencing the frequency with which
"schools (K-12) and "other schools" are reported as a locations of Internet access.
4 Only August 2000 data are shown for schools in the location of access figures. The
comparison between 1998 and 2000 is unreliable due to seasonal factors.
11
Internet to make calls.
{INSERT FIGURE Q}
Online shopping and bill paying was not the most common of online activities- only 30% of
Internet users reported regularly shopping or paying bills online in 2000. Nonetheless, this
activity saw the greatest increase (52.3%) between December 1998 and August 2000.
Internet Use at Home
E-mail continues to be the main use for the Internet at home. 5 The figures show that 84.8% of
people using the Internet at home used it for e-mail in 2000, up from the 78% in the 1998 report.
This year, one-third of Internet users shop and pay bills online (33.6%), up from the almost one-
quarter of the Internet population in 1998 (24.5%). Most other uses are relatively unchanged
from the previous survey. The percentage of those who go online to check news is about the
same, at 46%, while those use the Internet to search online for information hovered around 59%,
and those using the Internet for job-related tasks stayed around 28%.
As the near-universal application, e-mail use held relatively constant across income and
education categories. The differences between those using the Internet for e-mail at the lowest
income categories were within a percentage point or two of those using the Internet at the highest
income categories, and all were above 82%. In 1998, for example, 74.6% of those earning
$20,000-$24,999 per year used e-mail. That usage figure rose to 82% in 2000. In the $15,000-
$19,999 bracket, e-mail was used by 75.1% of users in the 1998 report; that figure jumped to
83% in 2000. Looking at e-mail use from an educational level, about 90.1% of those with
bachelor's degrees or higher used the Internet for e-mail, but 80% of those with an elementary-
school education did as well. In 1998, only 68% of those with elementary educations used the
Internet for e-mail. Those with some high-school courses but not a degree also increased their
use of e-mail, from 71.4% in 1998 to 84.2% in 2000.
The 2000 data also found that more women (86.8%) use the Internet for e-mail than men
(82.8%). Regardless of who is using e-mail, the predominant application is for communicating
with friends and family, but again, more women (96.6%) use the Internet for that purpose than
men (93.6%). More men (34.2%) use e-mail for job-related activities than women (24.7%) and
more men (34.4%) use e-mail for hobbies and other special interests than women (28.8%).
Racial differences play a small role in how e-mail is used. More Black (non-Hispanic) use e-
mail at home for job-related activities than White users (32.5% vs. 29%), and for educational
purposes, 38.1% for Black users, vs. 25.9% for White users.
5
Penetration rates shown in this section are represent a ratio of those individuals
engaging in the respective online activities as a share of Internet users who have access to the
Internet at home.
12
Among other at-home users for the Internet other than e-mail, men and women are roughly equal
in their use for e-commerce activities. Men used the Internet 32.7% for e-commerce, women
used it 34.5%. Men used the Internet more for job-related tasks, however, using it 30.2% for that
purpose contrasted with 24.4% for women. Men used the Internet more to check news, (54.3%),
than women (38.0%), but women went online more often to take courses, 34.6% contrasted with
31% for men. Men and women used the Internet equally in their searches for information, each
about 58%.
E-commerce has caught on with the group 25-34 years old. Nearly half of that bracket, 47.7%,
used the Internet for e-commerce, while the next ranking group was those 35-44 years old,
42.9%. Whites used the Internet for shopping and bill-paying more than Black users, 34.4% to
27.5%. In addition, 16.3% of Internet users in 2000 went online to look for jobs, up from 14.5%
in 1998. There were minor increases at all income levels.
Internet Use Outside the Home
People use the Internet outside the home do so in different ways than at-home usage.⁶ With one
exception, all of the tasks measured for Internet usage are done so less outside the home than at
home. The exception is for job-related activities. About half of Internet users are online for job-
related tasks outside the home, an increase from the 44.6% in 1998. In contrast, 27.3% of
Internet users went online for job-related tasks at home in 2000.
As Internet access at home as become more available, some of the tasks done outside the home
have dropped or at least remained relatively constant. In 2000, 32.2% of people using the
Internet did so to take courses. In 1998, that figure was 38.8%. In 2000, 44.7% of people using
the Internet did so to search for information; in 1998, the figure was 50.1%. People using the
Internet to check news also dropped slightly. On the other hand, e-mail use went up, 59.1% in
2000 vs. 53.6% in 1998, as did e-commerce, 10.4% in 2000 vs. 7.5% in 1998.
Outside the home, White users were more likely to go online for e-mail than Black users, 61%
vs. 51%. Black users were more likely to use the Internet outside the home than White users to
take course (41% vs. 29.7%), and were more likely to use the Internet to search for jobs (14.7%
vs. 7.2%).
{INSERT FIGURE JOB SEARCH}
In August 2000, an estimated 4.3 million people used the Internet outside the home to search for
jobs. This represented 8.4% of the 50.9 million people who used the Internet away from home.
Those with lower incomes were much more likely to search for jobs using the Internet. Among
6
Penetration rates shown in this section are represent a ratio of those individuals
engaging in the respective online activities as a share of Internet users who have access to the
Internet outside the home.
13
Tables
Table 1: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 3 and Older
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth in
Internet
Total
Internet
Total
Point
Dec.
Penetration
Aug.
Users
Users
Difference
1998
2000
Rate
Total Population
84,795
258,453
116,480
262,620
32.8
44.4
11.5
35
Male
43,033
125,932
56,962
127,844
34.2
44.6
10.4
30
Female
41,555
132,521
59,518
134,776
31.4
44.2
12.8
41
White Non-Hisp.
69,470
184,980
93,714
186,439
37.6
50.3
12.7
34
Black Non-Hisp
6,111
32,123
9,624
32,850
19.0
29.3
10.3
54
Asian/Pacific Islanders
3,467
9,688
5,095
10,324
35.8
49.4
13.6
38
Hispanic
4,887
29,452
7,325
30,918
16.6
23.7
7.1
43
Employed*
56,790
133,516
77,507
136,756
42.5
56.7
14.2
33
Not Employed*
1,647
5,726
2,698
5,961
28.8
45.3
16.5
58
Not in the Labor Force
14,411
70,924
20,661
71,232
20.3
29.0
8.7
43
Less than $15,000
5,170
37,864
6,057
32,096
13.7
18.9
5.2
38
$15,000 $24,999
5,623
30,581
7,063
27,727
18.4
25.5
7.1
38
$25,000 $34,999
8,050
31,836
11,054
31,001
25.3
35.7
10.4
41
$35,000 $49,999
13,528
39,026
16,690
35,867
34.7
46.5
11.9
34
$50,000 $74,999
19,902
43,776
25,059
43,451
45.5
57.7
12.2
27
$75,000 and above
24,861
42,221
36,564
52,189
58.9
70.1
11.2
19
Elementary t
206
12,529
452
12,253
1.6
3.7
2.1
131
Not a High School Graduate t
1,022
16,510
2,030
16,002
6.2
12.7
6.5
105
High School Graduate t
10,961
57,103
17,425
56,889
19.2
30.6
11.4
59
Some College t
16,603
43,038
24,201
44,628
38.6
54.2
15.6
40
Bachelors Degree or Higher t
26,571
43,509
34,083
45,755
61.1
74.5
13.4
22
3 to 8
2,680
24,282
3,671
23,962
11.0
15.3
4.3
39
14
Table 1: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 3 and Older
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth in
Internet
Total
Point
Internet
Total
Penetration
Dec.
Aug.
Users
Users
Difference
Rate
1998
2000
9 to 17
15,396
35,821
19,579
36,673
43.0
53.4
10.4
24
18 to 24
11,356
25,662
15,039
26,458
44.3
56.8
12.6
28
25 to 49
41,694
101,836
56,433
101,946
40.9
55.4
14.4
35
50 +
13,669
70,852
21,758
73,580
19.3
29.6
10.3
53
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding. * Age 16 and older. t Age 25 and older.
15
Table 2: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 3-8 Years
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth In
Point
Penetration
Internet
Internet
Total
Total
Dec. 1998
Users
Aug. 2000
Difference
Rate
Users
Total
2,680
24,282
3,671
23,962
11.0
15.3
4.3
39
Male
1,440
12,346
1,833
12,284
11.7
14.9
3.3
28
Female
1,240
11,936
1,838
11,677
10.4
15.7
5.4
52
White Non-Hisp.
2,058
15,089
2,739
14,837
13.6
18.5
4.8
35
Black Non-Hisp
271
3,881
374
3,654
7.0
10.2
3.3
47
Asian/Pacific Islanders
132
937
156
1,086
14.1
14.4
0.2
2
Hispanic
187
4,095
361
4,140
4.6
8.7
4.2
91
Less than $15,000
220
4,229
182
3,344
5.2
5.4
0.2
4
$15,000 $24,999
223
3,126
275
2,800
7.1
9.8
2.7
38
$25,000 $34,999
221
2,828
387
3,053
7.8
12.7
4.9
62
$35,000 $49,999
456
3,781
581
3,409
12.1
17.1
5.0
41
$50,000 $74,999
627
4,272
799
4,179
14.7
19.1
4.5
30
$75,000 and above
695
3,728
966
4,426
18.7
21.8
3.2
17
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding.
16
Table 3: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 9-17
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth In
Internet
Internet
Point
Penetration
Total
Total
Dec. 1998
Users
Users
Aug. 2000
Difference
Rate
Total
15,396
35,821
19,579
36,673
43.0
53.4
10.4
24
Male
7,886
18,355
9,925
18,771
43.0
52.9
9.9
23
Female
7,510
17,467
9,654
17,903
43.0
53.9
10.9
25
White Non-Hisp.
12,266
23,293
14,902
23,601
52.7
63.1
10.5
20
Black Non-Hisp
1,169
5,581
1,980
5,796
21.0
34.2
13.2
63
Asian/Pacific Islanders
612
1,516
837
1,428
40.4
58.6
18.3
45
Hispanic
1,185
5,006
1,706
5,427
23.7
31.4
7.8
33
Less than $15,000
1,121
5,062
1,244
4,326
22.2
28.8
6.6
30
$15,000 $24,999
1,155
4,066
1,413
3,890
28.4
36.3
7.9
28
$25,000 $34,999
1,514
4,408
1,889
4,132
34.3
45.7
11.4
33
$35,000 $49,999
2,606
5,500
2,898
5,302
47.4
54.7
7.3
15
$50,000 $74,999
3,553
6,686
4,082
6,370
53.1
64.1
10.9
21
$75,000 and above
4,215
6,176
5,827
7,801
68.2
74.7
6.4
9
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding.
17
Table 4: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 18-25
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth In
Internet
Internet
Point
Penetration
Total
Total
Users
Dec. 1998
Users
Aug. 2000
Difference
Rate
Total
11,356
25,662
15,039
26,458
44.3
56.8
12.6
28
Male
5,584
12,929
7,138
13,195
43.2
54.1
10.9
25
Female
5,772
12,732
7,901
13,264
45.3
59.6
14.2
31
White Non-Hisp.
8,693
16,772
11,234
17,290
51.8
65.0
13.1
25
Black Non-Hisp
982
3,679
1,575
3,797
26.7
41.5
14.8
55
Asian/Pacific Islanders
582
1,035
820
1,124
56.3
72.9
16.6
30
Hispanic
1,005
3,972
1,316
4,062
25.3
32.4
7.1
28
Less than $15,000
1,672
4,991
1,786
4,261
33.5
41.9
8.4
25
$15,000 $24,999
1,183
3,401
1,371
3,153
34.8
43.5
8.7
25
$25,000 $34,999
1,270
3,283
1,757
3,356
38.7
52.4
13.7
35
$35,000 $49,999
1,656
3,459
2,046
3,449
47.9
59.3
11.5
24
$50,000 $74,999
2,117
3,829
2,481
3,684
55.3
67.4
12.1
22
$75,000 and above
2,432
3,711
3,842
4,915
65.5
78.2
12.6
19
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding.
18
Table 5: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 25-49 In the Labor
Force
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth In
Internet
Point
Internet
Penetration
Total
Total
Dec. 1998
Users
Aug. 2000
Difference
Users
Rate
Total
37,808
86,509
50,107
85,850
43.7
58.4
14.7
34
Male
20,084
46,270
25,979
46,194
43.4
56.2
12.8
30
Female
17,725
40,239
24,129
39,656
44.0
60.8
16.8
38
White Non-Hisp.
31,133
62,563
40,342
61,269
49.8
65.8
16.1
32
Black Non-Hisp
2,922
10,455
4,221
10,471
27.9
40.3
12.4
44
Asian/Pacific Islanders
1,492
3,335
2,339
3,692
44.7
63.3
18.6
42
Hispanic
1,994
9,464
2,920
9,808
21.1
29.8
8.7
41
Employed
37,077
83,508
48,841
82,939
44.4
58.9
14.5
33
Not Employed
731
3,002
1,267
2,911
24.4
43.5
19.2
79
Not in the Labor Force
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Less than $15,000
1,248
7,307
1,458
5,778
17.1
25.2
8.1
48
$15,000 $24,999
2,060
8,780
2,461
7,425
23.5
33.1
9.7
41
$25,000 $34,999
3,632
10,805
4,666
10,096
33.6
46.2
12.6
38
$35,000 $49,999
6,398
15,333
7,546
13,227
41.7
57.0
15.3
37
$50,000 $74,999
10,051
18,365
12,140
17,765
54.7
68.3
13.6
25
$75,000 and above
11,298
16,381
16,401
20,201
69.0
81.2
12.2
18
Elementary
702
8,646
1,327
8,502
8.1
15.6
7.5
92
Not a High School Graduate
7,273
27,511
11,058
26,601
26.4
41.6
15.1
57
High School Graduate
11,621
24,663
15,804
24,730
47.1
63.9
16.8
36
Some College
12,187
17,946
14,854
18,097
67.9
82.1
14.2
21
Bachelor's Degree or More
6,026
7,744
7,064
7,920
77.8
89.2
11.4
15
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding.
19
Table 6: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 25-49 Not in the Labor
Force
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth In
Point
Penetration
Internet
Internet
Total
Total
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Difference
Rate
Users
Users
Total
3,886
15,327
6,326
16,097
25.4
39.3
13.9
55
Male
805
3,784
1,099
3,840
21.3
28.6
7.3
35
Female
3,081
11,542
5,227
12,257
26.7
42.6
16.0
60
White Non-Hisp.
3,161
9,842
5,054
10,339
32.1
48.9
16.8
52
Black Non-Hisp
197
2,085
438
2,321
9.4
18.9
9.4
100
Asian/Pacific Islanders
292
882
394
859
33.1
45.9
12.8
39
Hispanic
205
2,308
398
2,416
8.9
16.5
7.6
85
Less than $15,000
450
3,774
619
3,397
11.9
18.2
6.3
53
$15,000 $24,999
338
1,839
415
1,794
18.4
23.1
4.8
26
$25,000 $34,999
381
1,674
599
1,814
22.8
33.0
10.3
45
$35,000 $49,999
563
1,950
905
1,923
28.9
47.1
18.2
63
$50,000 $74,999
742
1,779
1,187
1,978
41.7
60.0
18.3
44
$75,000 and above
1,043
1,959
1,771
2,482
53.3
71.4
18.1
34
Elementary
139
3,493
314
3,436
4.0
9.1
5.2
129
Not a High School Graduate
919
5,407
1,544
5,380
17.0
28.7
11.7
69
High School Graduate
1,327
3,542
2,134
4,053
37.5
52.7
15.2
41
Some College
1,158
2,294
1,698
2,385
50.5
71.2
20.7
41
Bachelor's Degree or More
343
591
636
843
58.1
75.5
17.4
30
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding.
20
Table 7: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 50+ In the Labor Force
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth In
Internet
Internet
Point
Penetration
Total
Total
Users
Dec. 1998
Users
Aug. 2000
Difference
Rate
Total
10,268
30,618
14,891
32,103
33.5
46.4
12.9
38
Male
5,838
16,546
8,104
17,605
35.3
46.0
10.7
30
Female
4,430
14,072
6,788
14,498
31.5
46.8
15.3
49
White Non-Hisp.
9,134
24,762
13,189
25,810
36.9
51.1
14.2
39
Black Non-Hisp
517
2,684
779
2,797
19.3
27.9
8.6
44
Asian/Pacific Islanders
300
1,028
402
1,036
29.2
38.8
9.6
33
Hispanic
280
1,985
464
2,299
14.1
20.2
6.1
43
Employed
10,075
29,849
14,558
31,278
33.8
46.5
12.8
38
Not Employed
193
769
333
825
25.1
40.4
15.3
61
Less than $15,000
234
2,354
334
2,021
9.9
16.5
6.6
66
$15,000 $24,999
353
2,809
529
2,555
12.6
20.7
8.1
65
$25,000 $34,999
595
3,282
1,033
3,475
18.1
29.7
11.6
64
$35,000 $49,999
1,345
4,690
1,662
4,300
28.7
38.6
10.0
35
$50,000 $74,999
2,255
5,737
3,200
5,883
39.3
54.4
15.1
38
$75,000 and above
4,449
7,531
6,193
8,618
59.1
71.9
12.8
22
Elementary
213
3,932
419
4,003
5.4
10.5
5.1
93
Not a High School Graduate
1,930
10,059
2,897
9,886
19.2
29.3
10.1
53
High School Graduate
2,616
7,367
4,350
8,315
35.5
52.3
16.8
47
Some College
2,803
5,013
3,873
5,583
55.9
69.4
13.5
24
Bachelor's Degree or More
2,706
4,247
3,352
4,316
63.7
77.7
13.9
22
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding.
21
Table 8: Internet Penetration Individuals Age 50 + Not in the Labor
Force
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration
Percentage
Growth In
Point
Penetration
Internet
Total
Internet
Total
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Difference
Rate
Total
3,401
40,234
6,866
41,477
8.5
16.6
8.1
96
Male
1,518
15,702
2,885
15,956
9.7
18.1
8.4
87
Female
1,883
24,532
3,981
25,521
7.7
15.6
7.9
103
White Non-Hisp.
3,208
32,658
6,254
33,293
9.8
18.8
9.0
91
Black Non-Hisp
56
3,759
257
4,015
1.5
6.4
4.9
329
Asian/Pacific Islanders
70
955
148
1,099
7.3
13.5
6.1
84
Hispanic
41
2,622
159
2,765
1.6
5.8
4.2
267
Less than $15,000
226
10,147
434
8,968
2.2
4.8
2.6
118
$15,000 $24,999
322
6,559
600
6,110
4.9
9.8
4.9
100
$25,000 $34,999
462
5,556
724
5,075
8.3
14.3
5.9
71
$35,000 $49,999
556
4,313
1,052
4,259
12.9
24.7
11.8
91
$50,000 $74,999
610
3,109
1,169
3,591
19.6
32.6
12.9
66
$75,000 and above
779
2,736
1,563
3,745
28.5
41.7
13.3
47
Elementary
174
12,968
421
12,314
1.3
3.4
2.1
155
Not a High School Graduate
840
14,126
1,926
15,022
5.9
12.8
6.9
116
High School Graduate
1,038
7,466
1,913
7,530
13.9
25.4
11.5
83
Some College
789
3,737
1,554
4,264
21.1
36.4
15.3
73
Bachelor's Degree or More
560
1,937
1,052
2,347
28.9
44.8
15.9
55
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding.
22
Table 9: Internet Access Location
Internet Penetration Only Outside the
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration at Home
Home
Only
Only
Percenta
Growth
Percenta
Growth
Total
Total
At
Outside
At
Outside
Dec.
Aug.
ge Point
in
Dec.
Aug.
ge Point
in
Populati
Any Use
Both
Populati
Any Use
Both
Home
the
Home
the
1998
2000
Differen
Penetrati
1998
2000
Differen
Penetrati
on
on
Home
Home
ce
on Rate
ce
on Rate
Total
258,453
84,795
57,702
27,092
16,912
262,620
116,480
93,759
22,721
28,183
22.3
35.7
13.4
60
10.5
8.7
(1.8)
(17)
54
10.4
8.1
Male
125,932
43,033
29,921
13,112
9,889
127,844
56,962
46,635
10,327
15,361
23.8
36.5
12.7
(2.3)
(22)
Female
132,521
41,555
27,542
14,013
6,990
134,776
59,518
47,125
12,393
12,822
20.8
35.0
14.2
68
10.6
9.2
(1.4)
(13)
57
11.0
8.6
White Non-Hisp.
184,980
69,470
49,122
20,348
14,467
186,439
93,714
77,715
15,999
23,527
26.6
41.7
15.1
(2.4)
(22)
Black Non-Hisp
32,123
6,111
2,944
3,167
824
32,850
9,624
6,221
3,403
1,721
9.2
18.9
9.8
107
9.9
10.4
0.5
5
Asian/Pacific
9,688
3,467
2,470
997
878
10,324
5,095
4,322
773
1,575
25.5
41.9
16.4
64
10.3
7.5
(2.8)
(27)
Islanders
Hispanic
29,452
4,887
2,545
2,342
588
30,918
7,325
4,968
2,357
1,237
8.6
16.1
7.4
86
8.0
7.6
(0.3)
(4)
14.0
11.8
(2.2)
(16)
Employed*
133,516
56,790
38,147
18,643
13,473
136,756
77,507
61,404
16,103
23,286
28.6
44.9
16.3
57
Not Employed*
5,726
1,647
1,001
646
149
5,961
2,698
2,042
656
348
17.5
34.3
16.8
96
11.3
11.0
(0.3)
(2)
Not in the Labor
3.8
70,924
14,411
10,733
3,678
1,793
71,232
20,661
17,966
2,695
2,269
15.1
25.2
10.1
67
5.2
(1.4)
(27)
Force*
Less than $15,000
37,864
5,170
2,189
2,981
679
32,096
6,057
3,494
2,563
981
5.8
10.9
5.1
88
7.9
8.0
0.1
1
8.9
(0.6)
(7)
$15,000 $24,999
30,581
5,623
2,713
2,910
568
27,727
7,063
4,597
2,466
912
8.9
16.6
7.7
87
9.5
$25,000 $34,999
31,836
8,050
4,490
3,560
1,197
31,001
11,054
8,028
3,026
1,776
14.1
25.9
11.8
84
11.2
9.8
(1.4)
(13)
23
Table 9: Internet Access Location
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration at Home
Internet Penetration Only Outside the
Home
Total
Only
Only
Percenta
Growth
Percenta
Growth
Total
At
Outside
At
Outside
Dec.
Populati
Any Use
Both
Populati
Any Use
Both
Aug.
ge Point
in
Dec.
Aug.
ge Point
in
Home
the
Home
the
1998
2000
Differen
Penetrati
1998
2000
Differen
Penetrati
on
on
Home
Home
ce
on Rate
ce
on Rate
$35,000 $49,999
39,026
13,528
8,779
4,749
2,141
35,867
16,690
13,005
3,685
3,221
22.5
36.3
13.8
61
12.2
10.3
(1.9)
(16)
$50,000 $74,999
43,776
19,902
14,484
5,418
4,074
43,451
25,059
20,995
4,064
6,227
33.1
48.3
15.2
46
12.4
9.4
(3.0)
(24)
$75,000 and above
42,221
24,861
20,156
4,705
7,104
52,189
36,564
32,760
3,804
12,435
47.7
62.8
15.0
31
11.1
7.3
(3.9)
(35)
Elementaryt
12,529
206
12,253
452
Not a High School
16,510
1,022
16,002
2,030
Graduatet
High School
57,103
10,961
56,889
17,425
Graduatet
Some Colleget
43,038
16,603
44,628
24,201
Bachelor's Degree or
43,509
26,571
45,755
34,083
Moret
3 to 8
24,282
2,680
1,777
903
176
23,962
3,671
2,880
791
303
7.3
12.0
4.7
64
3.7
3.3
(0.4)
(11)
9 to 17
35,821
15,396
9,920
5,476
2,323
36,673
19,579
15,557
4,022
3,589
27.7
42.4
14.7
53
15.3
11.0
(4.3)
(28)
18 to 24
25 49 In Labor Force
86,509
37,808
26,072
11,736
9,525
85,850
50,107
40,177
9,931
15,549
30.1
46.8
16.7
55
13.6
11.6
(2.0)
(15)
25 to 49 Not in Labor
15,327
3,886
3,231
655
274
16,097
6,326
5,652
674
443
21.1
35.1
14.0
67
4.3
4.2
(0.1)
(2)
Force
50+ In the Labor
30,618
10,268
7,265
3,003
2,318
32,103
14,891
12,054
2,838
4,420
23.7
37.5
13.8
58
9.8
8.8
(1.0)
(10)
24
Table 9: Internet Access Location
Dec. 1998
Aug. 2000
Internet Penetration at Home
Internet Penetration Only Outside the
Home
Total
Only
Only
Percenta
Growth
Percenta
Growth
Total
At
Outside
At
Outside
Dec.
Populati
Any Use
Both
Populati
Any Use
Aug.
ge Point
in
Dec.
Both
Aug.
ge Point
in
Home
the
Home
the
1998
2000
Differen
Penetrati
1998
2000
Differen
Penetrati
on
on
Home
Home
ce
on Rate
ce
on Rate
Force
50+ Not In the Labor
40,234
3,401
3,036
365
102
41,477
6,866
6,456
410
331
7.5
15.6
8.0
106
0.9
1.0
0.1
9
Force
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding. Individuals age 3 and older unless otherwise noted. * Age 16 and older. t Age 25 and older.
25
Table 10: Places of Internet Access 2000
Aug. 2000
Percent of the Population Reporting Access at a Location
Someone
Someone
Total
At School
Other
Public
Communit
At School
Other
Public
Communit
At Work
Else's
Other
At Work*
Else's
Other
Population
(K-12)
School
Library
y Center
(K-12)
School
Computer
Library
y Center
Computer
Total
258,453
31895
9,637
4,205
4,896
261
7,009
1,451
12.3
3.7
1.6
1.9
0.1
2.7
0.6
Male
125,932
16,572
4,587
1,899
2,229
122
3,339
820
13.2
3.6
1.5
1.8
0.1
2.7
0.7
Female
132,521
15,324
5,050
2,306
2,667
139
3,670
631
11.6
3.8
1.7
2.0
0.1
2.8
0.5
White Non-Hisp.
184,980
25,994
6,682
2,859
3,234
135
5,360
1,211
14.1
3.6
1.5
1.7
0.1
2.9
0.7
Black Non-Hisp
32,123
2,616
1,347
566
919
68
740
102
8.1
4.2
1.8
2.9
0.2
2.3
0.3
Asian/Pacific
9,688
1,489
387
344
223
20
246
61
15.4
4.0
3.6
2.3
0.2
2.5
0.6
Islanders
Hispanic
29,452
1,649
1,133
407
488
38
603
68
5.6
3.8
1.4
1.7
0.1
2.0
0.2
Employed*
133,516
31,895
2,844
2,576
2,448
124
4,110
894
23.9
2.1
1.9
1.8
0.1
3.1
0.7
Not Employed*
5,726
0
262
215
249
19
410
102
0.0
4.6
3.8
4.3
0.3
7.2
1.8
Not in the Labor
70,924
0
1,874
1,238
1,182
75
1,492
346
0.0
2.6
1.7
1.7
0.1
2.1
0.5
Force*
Less than $15,000
37,864
790
1007
752
750
74
1031
149
2.1
2.7
2.0
2.0
0.2
2.7
0.4
$15,000 $24,999
30,581
1226
963
407
517
34
975
85
4.0
3.1
1.3
1.7
0.1
3.2
0.3
$25,000 $34,999
31,836
2,473
1,145
424
627
28
1,026
159
7.8
3.6
1.3
2.0
0.1
3.2
0.5
$35,000 $49,999
39,026
4,350
1,309
446
689
27
1,149
198
11.1
3.4
1.1
1.8
0.1
2.9
0.5
26
Table 10: Places of Internet Access 2000
Aug. 2000
Percent of the Population Reporting Access at a Location
Someone
Someone
Total
At School
Other
Public
Communit
At School
Other
Public
Communit
At Work
Else's
Other
At Work*
Else's
Other
Population
(K-12)
School
Library
y Center
(K-12)
School
Computer
Library
y Center
Computer
$50,000 $74,999
43,776
7,225
1,735
586
797
33
1,075
213
16.5
4.0
1.3
1.8
0.1
2.5
0.5
$75,000 and above
42,221
12,495
2,260
1,086
869
35
995
497
29.6
5.4
2.6
2.1
0.1
2.4
1.2
Elementaryt
12,529
Not a High School
16,510
Graduatet
High School
57,103
Graduatet
Some Colleget
43,038
Bachelor's Degree or
43,509
Moret
3 to 8
24,282
9 to 17
35,821
18 to 24
25 49 In Labor Force
86,509
25 to 49 Not in Labor
15,327
Force
50+ In the Labor
30,618
Force
50+ Not In the Labor
40,234
Force
27
Table 10: Places of Internet Access 2000
Aug. 2000
Percent of the Population Reporting Access at a Location
Someone
Someone
Total
At School
Other
Public
Communit
At School
Other
Public
Communit
At Work
Else's
Other
At Work*
Else's
Other
Population
(K-12)
School
Library
y Center
(K-12)
School
Computer
Library
y Center
Computer
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, December 1998 and August 2000.
Notes: The sum of the components may not equal the total due to rounding. Individuals age 3 and older unless otherwise noted. * Age 16 and older. t Age 25 and older.
28
Different Perspectives on Access & Use
50
46.7
44.4
45
41.5
40
35.7
35
32.7
30
30
26.2
25
22.3
20
15
10
5
0
Households
Persons with Home Access
Persons Using Home Access
Persons Using Anywhere
1998 2000
100
90
80
70
Internet Penetration (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3 77 23 > 19 15 39 37 13 35 2> 57 59 63 X> >1 >9 55 6> >s
Age
-
Dec. 1998 — Aug. 2000
Fig C
10/11/00
Figures2.xls
100
90
80
70.1
70
Internet Penetration (%)
57.7
58.9
60
50
46.5
45.5
40
35.7
34.7
30
25.5
25.3
18.9
18.4
20
13.7
10
0
Under $15
$15 to 24.9
$25 to 34.9
$35 to 49.9
$50 to 74.9
$75 +
Household Income
Dec. 1998 Aug. 2000
Fig. X
10/11/00
Figures2.xls
100
90
80
70
60
Internet Penetration (%)
50.3
49.4
50
44.4
40
37.6
35.8
32.7
29.3
30
23.7
19.0
20
16.6
10
0
Total
White
Black
API
Hispanic
Dec. 1998 Aug. 2000
Fig S
10/11/00
Figures2.xls
Household Access Rates by Race & Hispanic Origin
Do Not Closely Track Internet Use by Persons
60
56.8
50.3
49.4
50
46.1
40
29.3
30
23.6
23.7
23.5
20
10
0
Hispanic
Blacks
White
API
Share of Households with Internet Access
Share of Persons Using Internet Anywhere
Internet at Home, Use & Access 2000
Total
35.7
53.3
API
41,9
41.4
White
41.7
46.7
Black
18.9
73.1
Hispanic
16.1
75
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Use at Home
Not Use Home Access
No Home Access
100
90
80
Women in 2000
70
Internet Penetration (%)
60
50
Men in 2000
40
30
Men In 1998
Women in 1998
20
10
0
3
6
9
12
17
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
41
44
47
50
53
56
59
62
65
68
71
74
77
80
Age
Male 1998
—
Female 1998
—
Male 2000
—
Female 2000
Fig E
10/11/00
Figures2.xls
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Internet Penetration (%)
60.0
52.7
50.7 49.9
50.0
46.1
44.6 44.2
40.0
30.5
30.0
27.9
24.7
22.7
20.0
10.0
0.0
Total
White
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Male
Female
Fig F
10/11/00
Figures2.xls
100
90
80
74.5
70
61.1
Internet Penetration (%)
60
54.2
50
38.6
40
30.6
30
19.2
20
12.7
10
6.2
3.7
1.6
0
Elementary
Not a High School
High School
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate
Graduate
or More
Dec. 1998 Aug. 2000
location.xls
10/11/00
Fig XX
100
90
80
70
Internet Penetration (%)
60
56.8
55.4
53.4
50
43.0
44.3
40.9
40
29.6
30
19.3
20
15.3
11.0
10
0
3 to 8
9 to 17
18 to 24
25 to 49
50 +
Years
Dec. 1998 Aug. 2000
Fig D
10/11/00
Figures2.xls
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Internet Penetration (%)
50.0
46.0
46.8
40.0
35.3
31.5
30.0
20.0
18.1
15.6
9.7
10.0
7.7
0.0
50+ In the Labor Force ('98)
50+ In the Labor Force ('00)
50+ Not In the Labor Force ('98) 50+ Not In the Labor Force ('00)
Male
Female
Figure CC
10/6/00
New_draft_sheet.xls
Aug. 2000
25.0
10.7
8.7
55.6
Dec. 1998
15.8
6.5
10.5
67.3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Location of Internet Access
Only at Home
Both
Only Outside the Home
No Use
Fig AT
API
26.6
15.3
7.5
50.6
White
29.1
12.6
8.6
49.7
Hispanic
12.1 4.0 7.6
76.3
Black
13.7
5.2 10.4
70.7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Location of Internet Access
Only at Home
Both
Only Outside
No Use
F, 12
Fig Q
Percent of Internet Users
0
10
20
30
40
50
09
70
80
06
100
70.0
E-mail
79.9
Search for
60.0
Information
58.8
40.7
Check news
43.2
39.7
Take Course
35.4
10/11/00
1998 2,000
Do Job Related
35.8
Tasks
35.3
19.7
Shop and Pay Bills
30.0
13.6
Search for Jobs
16.1
10.3
Other
9.1
6.0
Figures2.xls
Make Phone Calls
5.7
Searching for Jobs on the Internet as Percent of Internet Users,
Activity Declines as Household Income Rises
15.0
12.6
12.1
12.0
10.4
9.2
9.0
8.0
6.5
6.0
3.0
0.0
$0-14,999
$15-24,999
$25-34,999
$35-49,999
$50-74,999
$75,000+
Household Income
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
5
Divider Title:
Internet Access and Computer Use
Among People With Disabilities
One source of variation in rates of Internet access and computer use not discussed previously in
this report is the variation due to the presence or absence of physical or mental disabilities. The
periodic supplements to the Current Population Survey, on which the analysis in the preceding
sections are based, offer only a very limited basis from which to consider the issue of access to
the Internet and computer use by people who have disabilities. Fortunately, a new research data
file derived from a different survey, the Survey on Income and Program Participation (SIPP), is
now available to provide, for the first time, a detailed look at this subject.²
An advantage of the SIPP research data file is that it allows examination of Internet access and
computer use rates by people with specific types of disabilities. This is an important advantage
because one can reasonably assume that the type of disability has implications for whether and
how a person uses computer and the Internet. For people with some types of disabilities, the
computer and Internet may offer important improvements in their ability to communicate (e.g.
people who have difficulty hearing or getting around). For people with other types of
disabilities, however (e.g. people with poor vision or limited manual dexterity), the standard
computer and Internet interfaces may prove to be an additional barrier.
As the data presented below show, Internet access and computer use do vary by disability type.
In addition, the data show that some of the variation that is apparent in the aggregate is the result
of some fairly large differences in the economic and demographic distribution of the various
populations with and without disabilities. Even after accounting for some of these factors,
¹The CPS contains one question on work disability; that is the survey asks respondents if they have a
health problem or disability which prevents them from working or limits the amount or type of work they can
perform. Using the December 1998 CPS supplement, a recent study compares computer and Internet use between
the group that has a work disability with the rest of the population. See H. Stephen Kaye, "Computer and Internet
Use Among People with Disabilities," Disability Statistics Report (13), U.S. Department of Education, National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2000.
²The CPS and SIPP have different purposes and very different survey designs (see Methodology Section in
the first part of this report). SIPP is a multi-panel longitudinal survey of adults, measuring their economic and
demographic characteristics once every 4 months over a period of four years. Thus, SIPP provides cross-sectional
views of respondents' lives at discrete points in time, as well as a longitudinal history of changes in their economic
circumstances and household relationships. The current panel started in 1996 and will finish this year. Similar to
the CPS, the SIPP asks sets of questions in addition to the core set on a rotating basis. In the case of the SIPP these
rotating sets are called topical modules. The SIPP wave conducted between August and November 1999 (Wave 11)
added several computer and Internet use questions to the scheduled topical module on adult disability. The addition
of the questions to this particular module gives us our first opportunity to look at computer and Internet use among
the disabled community in detail. These data are, however, preliminary and subject to revision. For more
information on the SIPP see http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/
³Technology solutions, while far from perfect, are constantly improving, holding out the hope that
computers will increasingly come to be viewed as assistive devices and Web page providers will be able to produce
content that is accessible by anyone.
however, differences remain in the rates of Internet access and computer use between those who
have a disability and those that do not.⁴
There are no generally accepted standards for deciding who are "the disabled." In fact, people
with similar conditions may disagree as to whether or not they have a disability. One approach
is to adopt a concept similar to the one 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.⁵ 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 in the disabled category for the purposes
of this study is defined in Box III-1. 6
It is obvious that any categorization of the disabled, 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 data relating to Internet and computer use were asked of persons age 16 and above.
During the August to November 1999 time frame 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-1. Although the proportion of persons with any of the specific disabilities considered is
4 As with the discussion in earlier sections, the present analysis is very simplistic, looking as it does only at
cross-tabulations of survey data. No attempt has been made here to disentangle the complex interactions, for
example, that exist between disability status, income, and employment or to discern causality. Further research is
needed.
5 This Act, which celebrated its tenth anniversary on July 26, 2000, prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation,
and telecommunications. The Act also includes in its definition any individuals with a disability, people with a
history or record of such an impairment and people who are perceived by others as having such an impairment.
6 This concept of disability was developed by John McNeil, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce. For additional information on developing an appropriate definition of disability in the context of the
SIPP survey see John M. McNeil, "Employment, Earnings, and Disability," presented at 75th Annual Conference of
the Western Economic Association International meetings, June 29-July 3, 2000.
(www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability.html)
2
Box III-1: Building a Disability Category
There are many types of disabilities including:
Trouble walking, which includes those who use a cane, crutches, walker, wheelchair,
electric scooter, or similar aid for getting around
Vision difficulties, which includes those who have difficulty seeing the words and letters in
ordinary newspaper print even when wearing glasses or contact lenses if they usually wear
them, in addition to the blind
Hearing difficulties, which includes those who have difficulty hearing what is said in a
normal conversation with another person even when wearing hearing aid, in addition to the
deaf
Difficulties using hands and fingers to do things such as picking up a glass or grasping a
pencil
Learning disabilities, such as dyslexia
These five disabilities, however, are not nearly inclusive enough to approach the ADA concept of
any "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities."
Therefore, in order to view the disabled community broadly, a category consisting of people with
any of the above disabilities, plus any of the following disabilities was constructed:
Has difficulty having their speech understood
Has difficulty lifting and carrying something as heavy as 10 pounds-such as a bag of
groceries
Has difficulty walking up a flight of 10 stairs or walking a quarter of a mile
Has difficulty using an ordinary telephone
Because of a physical or mental health condition, has trouble doing any of the following by
themselves:
Getting around INSIDE the home
Going OUTSIDE the home, for example, to shop or visit a doctor's office
Getting in and out of bed or a chair
Taking a bath or shower
Dressing
Eating
Using or getting to the toilet
Keeping track of money or bills
Preparing meals
Doing light housework such as washing dishes or sweeping a floor
Taking the right amount of prescribed medicine at the right time
Is mentally retarded
Has a developmental disability such as autism or cerebral palsy
Has Alzheimer's disease or any other serious problem with confusion or forgetfulness
Has some other mental or emotional condition
During the past 12 months, reported that problems with people skills, concentration, or
stress seriously interfered with their ability to manage everyday activities
Has a long-lasting physical or mental condition that has made it difficult to remain
employed, to find a job, or to do work around the house
3
not large on a proportional basis, even the smallest group, those with a learning disability, has
close to 3 million people (Table III-1).
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.
Bureau of the Census, 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"⁸ 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 vision problems in having access to the Internet.
7 An individual may have more than one type of disability.
⁸Respondents were asked only if they had access to the Internet from home or elsewhere, not if they
actually used the Internet. Therefore a person with a disability would answer "yes" to Internet access at home, even
if they never used it themselves. This means that actual use of the Internet by various groups of people with
disabilities is less than would be indicated by the Internet access rates reported here.
⁹The SIPP data from which these descriptive statistics are drawn are research data for which the analysis
required to construct confidence intervals has not yet been undertaken. Therefore it is not possible to judge with
accuracy which differences among groups are "real" in the statistical sense. All results and inferences contained in
this section should be consider preliminary pending development of testing criteria.
4
Figure III-1: Internet Access
by Disability Status
1999
With No Disability
42.1
14.6
43.3
With A Disability
21.6
6.8
₹71.6
Learning Disability
31.2
11.0
57.8
Difficulty Using
17.5
5.0
77.5
Hands
Hearing Problems
21.3
5.9
72.8
Vision Problems
16.3
4.8
¥78.9
Walking Problems
15.0
3.6
81.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent
Internet Access at Home
No Home Internet, but access elsewhere
No Internet Access
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11). U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce
While the SIPP does not question all respondent about computer ownership, respondents are
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." Therefore 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 PC.
Figure III-2: Personal Computer Use Experience
by Disability Status
1999
With No Disability
51.0
25.7
With A Disability
20.9
20.1
59.0
Learning Disability
31.5
27.6
40.9
Difficulty Using Hands
12.8
19.2
68.1
Hearing Problems
18.6
17.1
64.3
Vision Problems
13.5
16.9
69.7
Walking Problems
11.9
13.7
74.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent
Uses a Computer on a Regular Basis
Not a Regular User, But Has Use a Computer
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11). U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce
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).
Figure III-3: Regular Users of PCs
by Location and Disability Status
1999
With No Disability
31.7
44.3
19.3
4.8
With A Disability
46.5
31.7
17.3
4.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent
Home, but Not Work
Home and Work
Work, But Not Home
Other
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Exploring the Populations with Disabilities
While plausible explanations for some of the results presented above, others offer more
questions than answers. One could hypothesize, for example, that the lower rates of PC use at
work by those with a disability reflects lower employment among that group or that those with
vision problems or difficulty using their hands have conditions that make computer or Internet
use difficult. 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 in vision problems?
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-1) 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 Appendix Table AIII-1). There
are striking differences, however, in income, age, and employment distributions: the disabled
group has lower income, is older, and is less likely to be employed than the group without
disabilities (see Figures III-4-III-9). The previous sections of this report show these three
variables to be associated with substantial variations in computer and Internet use. And, indeed,
some interesting variations are found in rates of Internet access and regular computer use
6
between the disabled and the nondisabled populations when considered over these dimensions,
as well as gender and race/ethnicity.
7
Those w/ a Disabely
Those No Disability
by Income
by Incom
Figure III-4
Figure III-5
$75,000 or more
10.6%
$75,000 or more
Less than $25,000
25.3%
23.7%
$50,000 to $74,999
13.2%
Less than $25,000
48.5%
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
27.7%
21.4%
$25,000 to $49,999
29.6%
Source:
Source:
Figure III-6 Age
Figure III-7 Age
18 to 24 year olds
6.5%
65 and above
9.6%
18 to 24 year olds
19.1%
65 and above
50 to 64 year olds
37.4%
25 to 49 year olds
17.1%
30.6%
25 to 49 year olds
50 to 64 year olds
54.2%
25.5%
Source:
Source:
Employment
Employment
Employed
Emplaped Not 25.77.
32.2
Not
Explayed
Employed
74,3%
67.8%
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, however, 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 household income is less than $25,000, while there is
less than a 20% differential in access rates where household income is in the $75,000 and above
range. Similarly, Figure III-11 shows that the difference between the percent of people with
disabilities who regularly use a PC and the percent of people without a disability who regularly
use a PC narrows as incomes rise. 10
Figure III-10: Internet Access at Home
by Income and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
62.0
60
49.6
51.3
50
40
35.1
34.2
30
23.1
23.8
20
10.4
10
0
less than $25,000
$25,000 to
$50,000 to
$75,000 and
$49,999
$74,999
above
With a Disability
Figure III-11 a PC
Regularly Uses
U.S. Department of Incommer
Source: Survey on
Income and Disability Status, 1999 of
the
Census,
Percent
100
90
80
68.3
70
57.9
60
50
46.8
45.1
40
31.6
34.0
30
24.1
20
10.0
10
0
less than
$25,000 to
$50,000 to
$75,000 and
$25,000
$49,999
$74,999
above
With a Disability
With No Disability
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11). U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce
10
The companion figures of "No Internet Access at Home, But Elsewhere" and "Never Used a PC" appear
in the Appendix Table AIII-2.
8
Race and Ethnicity- As regards home Internet access, Hispanics with a disability are the most
like their comparative nondisabled group, with the disabled rate being 67% of the nondisabled
rate (see Figure III-12). When considering differences in the proportion of each group that uses a
PC regularly (see Figure III-13), Blacks and Asians have the greatest disparity between their
disabled and nondisabled populations on a percentage basis.
Figure III-12: Internet Access at Home
by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
47.7
50
45.9
40
30
24.4
24.7
23.4
21.9
20
14.7
10.1
10
0
White
Black
Asian and
Hispanic
With a Disability
Pacific Islander
With No Disability
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11). U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Figure III-13: Regularly Uses a PC
by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
55.8
51.8
50
38.3
40
32.3
30
23.2
20
16.6
13.3
14.0
10
0
White
Black
Asians and
Hispanic
Pacific
With a Disability
Islanders
With No Disability
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation research data file (Aug-Nov 1999. Wave 11). U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
9
Age- Individuals in younger age groups are more similar in their degree of home Internet
access whether or not a disability is present, 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 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 the disabled and nondisabled
populations in their experience with personal computers across age groups (see Figure III-15).
Figure III-14: Internet Access at Home
by Age and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
46.6
41.4
42.5
40
35.9
31.4
30
24.0
20
17.5
9.3
10
0
16-24 years
25-49 years
50-64 years
65 and over
With a Disability
With No Disability
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Figure III-15: Regularly Uses a PC
by Age and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
57.6
60
55.5
50
42.6
39.5
40
32.5
30
19.0
20
15.1
10
5.7
0
16-24 years
25-55 years
56-64 years
65 and over
With a Disability
With No Disability
Source Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce
10
Employment Status- The following charts (Figures III-16 and III-17) consider disability status
by employment status. When considering employment status in the current context, employed
versus not employed is used rather than employed, not employed, and not in the labor force. 11
Home Internet access rates and regular use of PCs by employed persons in the two groups are
substantially more similar, than for persons who are not employed.
Figure III-16: Internet Access at Home
by Employment and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
45.6
40
35.7
32.0
30
20
14.9
10
0
Not Employed
Employed
With a Disability
With No Disability
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999. Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of
Comme Figure III-17: Regularly Uses a PC
by Employment and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
56.5
50
41.9
40
35.0
30
20
10.8
10
0
Not Employed
Employed
With a Disability
With No Disability
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999. Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
11 Only those who are actively seeking work are counted as unemployed. Since a large proportion of those
with a disability may consider the barriers to employment to be too high to overcome, they drop out of the labor
force numbers.
11
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 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).
Figure III-18: Internet Access at Home
by Gender and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
43.3
41.0
40
30
23.9
19.7
20
10
0
Male
Female
With a Disability
With No Disability
Source: on
U.S. Department of
Survey Commercigure 111-19. Regularly Uses'a PC
of the Census,
by Gender and Disability Status, 1999
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50.3
51.6
50
40
30
22.5
19.6
20
10
0
Male
Female
With a Disability
With No Disability
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11). U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
12
Table III-2
Population Distribution by Age and Disability
16-24
25-49
50-64
65 and older
No
Has A
No
Has A
No
Has A
No
Has A
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability
Population
31,282
2,960
88,557
13,885
27,932
11,604
15,596
16,966
(in thousands)
Population
91.4
8.6
86.4
13.6
70.6
29.4
47.9
52.1
Distribution
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
8.1
13.5
6.5
9.6
Asian and Pacific
4.3
1.4
3.9
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.5
Islanders
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
9.5
21.3
11.3
29.8
24.7
40.6
Graduate
High School
30.3
37.0
31.8
33.4
26.5
30.8
Graduate
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
13
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 (Appendix Table AIII-1 and AIII-3 ). And as
shown in Table III-2, although differences remain between the disabled and the nondisabled
populations 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 Appendix Table AIII-1.
Access, Use, and Disability: 16-24 year olds
This youngest of the age groups for which SIPP computer and Internet use 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, or 8.6%, 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 ones 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 the group who have a disability and the group that
does not are much smaller than they were 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 those employed
whether or not they have a disability. 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. It is surprising that the point differential between disabled and nondisabled is the same
between the full-time students as it is for the entire 16-24 year old group as a whole.
14
Figure III-20: Internet Access Among 16-24 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
41.4
20.6
38.0
With A Disability
35.9
17.1
47.1
Learning Disability
36.9
17.3
45.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent
Internet Access at Home
No Home Internet, but access elsewhere
No Internet Access
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Figure III-21: Personal Computer Use Experience
Among 16-24 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
57.6
33.0
9.4
With A Disability
39.5
38.9
21.6
Learning Disability
35.8
41.1
23.1
sus
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Uses a Computer on a Regular Basis
Percent
Not a Regular User, But Has Used a Computer Before
Never Used a Computer
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
15
Table III-3
Internet Access and Computer Use by 16-24 Year Olds
(Population: 34,242,000)
Home Internet
Internet Access,
Regular PC User
Never Used a PC
Access
But Not At Home
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
All 16-24 Year
41.4
35.9
20.6
17.1
57.6
39.5
9.4
21.6
Olds
Male
41.5
34.8
19.4
15.1
54.8
35.5
10.1
22.6
Female
41.3
37.1
21.9
19.2
60.3
44.0
8.8
20.5
White Non-Hisp.
50.0
44.7
20.1
39.3
64.4
46.5
5.6
16.2
Black Non-Hisp
22.7
23.5
41.1
23.4
16.8
35.8
Asian and Pacific
48.3
20.1
69.0
5.4
Islanders
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
16.7
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.
16
Access, Use, and Disability: 25-49 year olds
According to data presented in an earlier section, Internet use remains generally level when
considered for the entire U.S. population at this age group, but there are substantial differences
across various measures 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. Only those with hearing difficulties come close to having a similar
proportion of their population with Internet access rates approaching the group comprised of
those without any disabilities.
Figure III-22: Internet Access Among 25-49 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
46.6
15.0
38.3
With A Disability
31.4
10.5
58.1
Learning Disability
30.5
9.6
59.9
Difficulty Using Hands
32.4
10.5
57.1
Hearing Problems
40.5
12.2
47.4
Vision Problems
30.5
9.8
59.7
Walking Problems
32.3
11.2
56.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Internet Access at Home
Percent
No Home Internet, but access elsewhere
Never Used a Computer
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999. Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Figure III-23: Personal Computer Use Experience
Among 25-49 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
55.9
25.2
18.9
With A Disability
33.3
27.1
39.5
Learning Disability
31.3
24.9
43.8:
Difficulty Using Hands
27.1
33.9
38.9
Hearing Problems
39.3
27.4
33:3
Vision Problems
30.4
28.8
40.8
Walking Problems
34.4
24.0
41.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Uses a Computer on a Regular Basis
Percent
Not a Regular User, But Has Use a Computer Before
Never Used a Computer
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce
This population group has the highest proportion employed of any other age group considered
here and although the proportion employed among those with no disabilities (86.9%) far exceeds
the proportion of those with a disability who are 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 basis¹².
Figure III-24: Internet Access
Among Employed 25-49 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
47.4
16.4
36.2
With A Disability
39.8
16.0
44.3
Learning Disability
42.8
16.0
41.2
Difficulty Using Hands
42.0
17.4
40.6
Hearing Problems
46.3
15.2
38.6
Vision Problems
39.2
15.0
45.8
Walking Problems
42.5
21.7
35.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Internet Access at Home
Percent
No Home Internet, but access elsewhere
Never Used a Computer
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Figure III-25: Personal Computer Use Experience
Among Employed 25-49 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
58.6
24.5
$17.0
With A Disability
46.5
27.1
Learning Disability
46.7
31.1
$22.21
Difficulty Using Hands
41.1
36.1
Hearing Problems
47.7
27.4
Vision Problems
44.0
24.9
12 The data in Figures X and X refer to
Walking Problems
53.1
26.9
$20.1
t
ne reference
period of the survey. Data in Table 3 and elsewhere consider people who had,any,employment (full or part-time)
during the reference period to be employed.
Percent
PC Uses a Computer on a Regular Basis
PC Not a Regular User, But Has Used a Computer Before
PC Never Used a Computer
10
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation research data file (Aug-Nov 1999. Wave 11). U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Table III-4
Internet Access and Computer Use by 25-49 Year Olds
(Population: 102,442,000)
Home Internet
Internet Access,
Regular PC User
Never Used a PC
Access
But Not At Home
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
All 25-49 Year
46.6
31.4
15.0
10.5
55.9
33.3
18.9
39.5
Olds
Male
47.3
31.6
13.1
8.3
54.3
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.
53.5
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 and Pacific
49.9
12.2
53.9
32.8
23.2
40.0
Islanders
Hispanic
23.3
18.6
9.8
6.8
31.5
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
42.3
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
21.3
34.8
$50,000 - $74,999
53.3
44.5
14.7
12.9
61.7
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
12.2
9.4
3.8
4.0
13.6
8.9
64.0
74.8
Graduate
High School
34.1
24.5
12.9
8.4
39.9
24.0
27.2
43.6
Graduate
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.
20
Note: Blank cells in the table indicate insufficient sample size to produce reliable estimates.
21
Access, Use, and Disability: 50-64 year olds
Among this group, 30% have at least one of the disabilities listed in Box III-1 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 household 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.
Figure III-26: Internet Access Among 50-64 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
42.5
12.6
¥44.9
With A Disability
24.0
7.2
68.8
Difficulty Using
22.5
6.5
₹ 71.0
Hands
Hearing Problems
28.5
11.0
60.6
Vision Problems
21.0
6.6
72.4
Walking Problems
25.1
5.0
69.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Internet Access at Home
Percent
No Home Internet, but access elsewhere
No Internet Access
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Figure III-27: Personal Computer Use Experience
Among 50-64 Year Olds
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
48.1
23.0
28.9
With A Disability
23.3
21.2
55.5
Difficulty Using Hands
18.5
21.5
60.1
Hearing Problems
26.7
23.0
50.3
Vision Problems
17.7
22.1
60.3
Walking Problems
22.7
20.6
56.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Uses a Computer on a Regular Basis
Percent
Not a Regular User, But Has Used a Computer Before
Never Used a Computer
Source: Survey on Income and Program Partipation, research data file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Table III-5
Internet Access and Computer Use by 50-64 Year Olds
(Population: 39,536,000)
Home Internet
Internet Access,
Regular PC User
Never Used a PC
Access
But Not At Home
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
All 50-64 Year
42.5
24.0
12.6
7.2
48.1
23.3
28.9
55.5
Olds
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 and Pacific
34.2
10.4
31.8
46.8
Islanders
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
13.6
7.4
4.0
1.8
11.4
5.8
73.6
83.5
Graduate
High School
30.6
17.62
11.9
7.1
34.0
17.3
39.8
59.4
Graduate
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.
23
Note: Blank cells in the table indicate insufficient sample size to produce reliable estimates.
24
Access, Use, and Disability: 65 year olds and Older
Over one-half (52.1%) of the population in this age group has a disability. Or to consider it
another way, over one-third (37.4%) of the total number of people with a disability falls into this
age group which accounts for only 15.6% of the population as a whole. 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. As shown in Table III-6, household income, once above $25,000
does not seem to impact computer use in either the group with disabilities or the group without
disabilities, although home Internet access rates do not seem to share this aberration.
Figure III-28: Internet Access Among 65 and Older
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
17.5
3.7
78.9
With A Disability
9.3
88.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent
Internet Access at Home
No Home Internet, but access elsewhere
No Internet Access
Source: Survey on Income and Program Paritipation, research date file (Aug-Nov 1999, Wave 11), U.S. Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Figure III-29: Personal Computer Use Experience
Among 65 and Older
by Disability Status, 1999
With No Disability
15.1
18.3
66.6
With A Disability
5.7
10.5
83.8
Trouble Grasping
10.1
87.1
Hearing Problems
6.9
10.1
83.0
Vision Problems
7.7
89.4
Walking Problems
8.6
88.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent
Uses a Computer on a Regular Basis
Not a Regular User, But Has Used a Computer Before
Never Used a Computer
Table III-6
Internet Access and Computer Use by 65 Year Olds and Older
(4,221 Thousand)
Home Internet
Internet Access,
Regular PC User
Never Used a PC
Access
But Not At Home
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
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
1.2
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 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
5.3
1.6
3.5
1.7
87.6
94.4
Graduate
High School
12.5
9.0
3.0
1.6
10.2
4.5
72.1
84.1
Graduate
Some College
23.8
13.4
5.2
3.1
20.2
8.9
56.3
93.7
College Graduate
37.1
24.0
6.3
4.9
35.4
19.4
38.1
59.8
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.
26
Conclusion:
Access to the Internet and computer use by persons with disabilities has been an area of intense
interest, in part, because the standard interface technology can either be an important assistive
device or a barrier depending of the type of disability. Surveys on which past Falling Through
the Net reports and Parts I and II of this report are based have not been able to provide a basis
from which to analyze this important subject in sufficient depth. In this year's report, however,
we have been able to supplement our analysis with data derived from the Census Bureau's
Survey on Income and Program Participation (SIPP) conducted in the fall of 1999.
Analyzing this data, we found that persons with a disability are only half as likely to have access
to the Internet at home as those without a disability: 21.6% compared to 42.1%. Further, only
20.9% of persons with disabilities reported regularly using a computer, compared to 51.0% of
those without disabilities.
But beyond this aggregate finding, we found some important differences based on type of
disability. In particular, people with hearing and mobility problems have higher rates of Internet
access and are more likely to regularly use a PC than people who have impaired vision and
problems with manual dexterity. This difference holds in the aggregate, as well as across age
groups. In examining the Internet access and computer use by people with disabilities, it is
important to take note of the fact that, as a group, they have lower income, are older, and are less
likely to be employed than the group without disabilities. These are characteristics are
associated with lower rates of Internet access and computer use.
Differences in home Internet access and computer use between those with a disability and those
without a disability were narrowest among youngest age group and then rose with each
succeeding age group. Similarly, differences between those with and those without disabilities
narrow substantially as income rise. But even when characteristics, such as income, age, and
employment are accounted for, important differences in Internet access and computer use
remain.
28
Appendix Table AIII-1
Individuals 16 and over
(Numbers in Thousands)
Total Population
Persons without a
Persons with a Disability
Disability
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
TOTAL
208,783
163,367
78.2
45,416
21.8
SEX
Male
100,449
48.1
80,580
49.3
19,869
43.7
Female
108,334
51.9
82,787
50.7
25,547
56.3
AGE
16 to 24
34,241
16.4
31,282
19.1
2,960
6.5
25 to 49
102,442
49.1
88,557
54.2
13,885
30.6
50 to 64
39,536
18.9
27,932
17.1
11,604
25.5
65 +
32,563
15.6
15,596
9.6
16,996
37.4
FAMILY INCOME
Less than $25,000
60,767
29.1
38,723
23.7
22,045
48.5
$25,000 to $49,999
60,976
29.2
48,405
29.6
12,571
27.7
$50,000 to $74,999
40,868
19.6
34,892
21.4
5,976
13.2
$75,000 or more
46,170
22.1
41,347
25.3
4,824
10.6
EMPLOYMENT
STATUS
Employed
136,030
65.2
121,398
74.3
14,632
32.2
Not Employed
72,753
34.8
41,969
25.7
30,784
67.8
RACE
White, Non-Hispanic
154,011
73.8
120,203
73.6
33,808
74.4
Black, Non-Hispanic
24,004
11.5
18,000
11.0
6,004
13.2
Asian and Pacific Isl
7,089
3.4
5,984
3.7
1,105
2.4
Hispanic
21,836
10.5
17,965
11.0
3,871
8.5
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.
29
Appendix Table AIII-2
Internet Access and Computer Use
(208 Million)
Home Internet
Internet Access,
Regular PC User
Never Used a PC
Access
But Not At Home
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
No
Has a
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
Disabil-
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
ity
All Persons 16 and
42.1
21.6
14.6
6.8
51.0
20.8
23.3
59.0
Above
Male
43.3
23.9
13.2
6.6
50.3
22.5
24.2
57.1
Female
41.0
19.7
16.0
7.1
51.6
19.6
22.5
60.5
White Non-Hisp.
47.7
24.4
14.6
7.0
55.8
23.2
19.3
56.0
Black Non-Hisp
24.7
10.1
17.4
7.8
38.3
13.2
30.5
68.1
API
45.9
12.4
13.4
51.8
16.6
25.2
67.2
Hispanic
21.9
14.6
12.0
4.8
32.2
13.9
42.3
69.1
Employed
56.5
41.9
18.2
31.4
Not Employed
35.0
10.8
38.1
72.1
Less than $25,000
23.1
10.4
12.8
4.5
31.6
10.0
39.9
72.5
$25,000 - $49,999
35.0
23.8
16.1
8.1
46.7
24.1
25.7
53.9
$50,000 - $74,999
49.6
34.2
14.6
10.1
57.9
34.0
16.7
41.5
$75,000 and above
62.0
51.3
14.4
10.3
68.3
45.4
10.7
32.5
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.
30
Appendix Table AIII-3
Presence of Disability by Age
(in percent)
16-24
25-49
50-64
65 and above
34,241 thousand
102,442 thousand
39,536 thousand
32,563 thousand
No Disability
91.4
86.4
70.6
47.9
Has a Disability
8.6
13.6
29.4
52.1
Difficulty Walking
0.4
1.4
4.8
17.7
Difficulty Seeing
0.5
1.7
4.1
11.4
Difficulty Hearing
0.7
1.3
3.7
12.0
Difficulty Grasping
0.3
1.5
4.0
9.4
Learning Disability
2.8
1.4
1.1
0.5
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.
31