Internet reported highlights of the breadth of the digital divide today

• Those with a college degree are more than eight times as likely to have a computer at home, and nearly sixteen times as likely to have home Internet access, as those with an elementary school education.
• A high-income household in an urban area is more than twenty times as likely as a rural, low-income household to have Internet access.
• A child in a low-income White family is three times as likely to have Internet access as a child in a comparable Black family, and four times as likely to have access as children in a comparable Hispanic household.
• A wealthy household of Asian/Pacific Islander descent is nearly thirteen times as likely to own a computer as a poor Black household, and nearly thirty-four times as likely to have Internet access.
• Finally, a child in a dual-parent White household is nearly twice as likely to have Internet access as a child in a White single-parent household, while a child in a dual-parent Black family is almost four times as likely to have access as a child in a single-parent Black household.

The data reveal that the digital divide -- the disparities in access to telephones, personal computers (PCs), and the Internet across certain demographic groups -- still exists and, in many cases, has widened significantly. The gap for computers and Internet access has generally grown larger by categories of education, income, and race.

Digital Divide eliminated by digital equity within one year!

The gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communications technologies (ICTs). In addition, the imbalance both in physical access to technology and the resources and skills needed to effectively develop a digital lifestyle. Unfortunately, no one seems to be focusing of ownership as a most expedient method to eliminate the digital divide. The barrier to digital equity is lack of ownership not access and use, yet the divide is allowed to grow due to deficient thinking media that implies the victims are the blame for the divide. What are your opinions?

Illuminating profiles of the Americans who are the most and least connected

 Source: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/

• Those Americans enjoying the greatest connectivity today are typically high-income households. Holding income constant, other highly-connected groups include Whites or Asians, middle-aged, highly-educated, employed, and/or married couples with children, most often found in urban areas and the West. Conversely, the least connected generally are low-income, Black, Hispanic, or Native American,⁽³⁾ senior in age, not employed, single-parent (especially female-headed) households, those with little education, and those residing in central cities or especially rural areas. These profiles generally prevailed during 1989-97 albeit some changes occurred (e.g., the South fell into last place among regions).
• Income. From 1989 through 1997, modem ownership increased for all income levels. Penetration rose tenfold in income brackets below $20,000 and increased at a decreasing rate in the higher income brackets, registering growth of 4.2 times at the $75,000 and over bracket. Despite greater growth rates by the lower income households, the percentage point gap between lowest and highest penetration (for the $5,000-9,999 group versus the wealthiest households) grew from 13.4 percentage points in 1989 to 56.5 percentage points in 1997. During this period, rural areas have generally experienced greater growth than central city and especially urban areas, but generally still trail the other two.
• Race/origin. During 1989-97, household modem penetration rose in every category of race/origin. White non Hispanic, Black non Hispanic, "Other non Hispanic," and Hispanic each grew eightfold or more. Because White and "Other non Hispanic" households started from a higher proportion, the digital gap has widened considerably compared to Blacks and Hispanics. For example, the frontrunner "Other non Hispanic" group (e.g., American Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos, Asians, Pacific Islanders) outdistanced Blacks and Hispanics by more than 22 percentage points in 1997, compared to 2.0 and 2.22 in 1989. That pattern generally holds whether rural, urban, or central city, although White households have the highest penetration in rural areas (24.6%).
• Education. During the eight-year period (from 1989 to 1997), the digital gap mushroomed to more than a fivefold increase (from a 8.6 to a 46.3 percent point difference) between those households of the lowest and the highest educational levels. This result can be explained largely in terms of the very low penetration rates exhibited by the less-educated households in 1989. This pattern generally holds in rural, urban, or central city areas, with the largest disparity in rural environs.
• Household type. The ownership of modems by all types of households grew substantially during 1989-97, registering sevenfold gains or more. As in 1989, households comprised of a married couple with children eighteen years old or younger led all other categories (4.9% in 1989, 42.5% in 1997). Single-parent households with children lagged considerably; female households with children trailed all others throughout the period (1.0% in 1989, 15.4% in 1997) but grew fifteenfold over the span -- faster than any other category. The digital gap expanded from 3.9 percentage points to 27.1. Both types of single-family rural households with children registered only a 0.5% modem penetration in 1989, but rocketed more than thirtyfold by 1997.
• Age. Modem ownership in each age bracket grew approximately sevenfold or more. Middle-aged householders (35-54 years) led all other categories, equaling more than 35.0% in 1997. Senior citizens exhibited the lowest penetration throughout the period, registering 13.2% in 1997. However, the seniors' elevenfold growth rate in modem ownership exceeded all other brackets. Between 1989-1997, the digital gap in terms of percentage points increased by roughly sixfold between the two groups. Urban middle-aged householders possessed the highest ownership rate (36.0%+), while rural seniors had the lowest penetration (11.2%) but the greatest growth rate (almost 13.0% from 1989-97).
• Employment. Modem ownership rose more than seven times for both the employed and unemployed, and more than 14 times for the many-faceted not-in-labor-force category. In 1997, the highest penetration occurred among the urban employed (34.5%), while the lowest gauge belonged to the not-in-labor-force category in rural areas (9.0%). From 1989 to 1997, the digital gap increased from a 3.6 to a 21.7 percentage point differential. The greatest growth over the period 1989-97 occurred in rural America for the employed and unemployed, and in urban areas for the not-in-labor-force.
• Region. The West exhibited the highest modem penetration in both 1989 (4.5%) and 1997 (30.8%), and no region experienced less than a sevenfold increase. The digital gap grew modestly, from 1.9 percentage points to 6.4. Whether in areas that were rural, urban, or central city, the Midwest grew more than any other region, bumping the South into last place. Rural areas frequently experienced greater growth rates than their urban or central city counterparts but often fell further behind in percentage-point differentials in urban-rural comparisons.

Are you comfortable with these finding low digital equity finding?

Americans of every demographic group and geographic area have experienced a significant increase in computer ownership and Internet access. Nationwide, PC ownership is now at 42.1%, up from 24.1% in 1994 and 36.6% in 1997 (an increase of 74.7% and 15.0%, respectively).  Households across rural, central city, and urban areas now own home computers in greater numbers; each area experienced at least a sixteen percentage point increase since 1994, and at least a five percentage point increase since 1997. Similarly, households of all ethnic groups, income levels, education levels, and ages have experienced a significant increase. Black and Hispanic households, for example, are now twice as likely to own PCs as they were in 1994.

Internet access has also grown significantly in the last year: 26.2% of U.S. households now have Internet access, up from 18.6% in 1997 (an increase of 40.9%). As with computer ownership, Internet access has increased for all demographic groups in all locations. In the last year alone, for example, Internet access increased 40.5% for White households, 45.4% for Black households, and 44.8% for Hispanic households.

An African American futurist without a digital vision?

Nat Irvin, II, provided groundbreaking demographic research for the future of African Americans in business and challenged traditional stereotypes. He is noted for many profiles including a new breed of forward-thinking, globally tuned African Americans who bring a “no-limits” approach to doing business (Read more).

In 1996, he founded Future Focus 2020, a non-profit think tank dedicated to examining the impact of upcoming, permanent changes in business, social and economic cultures. He predicts that by 2020, the United States will have elected its first African American president - President Obama was a big surprise and not even on the radar -  a woman graduate from a historically Black college. His president is predicted to be is a Green Party nominee. He also predicts that more African Americans than ever will enter business and begin to close the gaps between our community and the majority community. Unfortunately, I could not find any information about the plentiful opportunities for minorities that will emerge in renewable energy, energy efficiency, smart grid, broadband and water development due to the fact that traditional comparative solutions are losing societal support. This shift would provide being incentives for both groups to forge sustainable relationships  The challenge is getting minorities in position to receive funding opportunities without depending on current incumbents' credit or approval.

Futurist Intellectual Think Tank - a equity opportunity?

William E. B. Du Bois, an African American futurist, said: “The problem of the twentieth century will be the problem of the color line.” Unfortunately, as the lines of racial and ethnic diversity expand, redlining expands as well.

The University of Texas at Austion, provides a good conceptual picture for a Black Futurist Intellectual Think Tank,  but very little regarding the performance, outcomes or benefits. Basically,, each year a Black Futurist Intellectual Think Tank forum allegely convene at the University of Texas Center for Black Business History, Entrepreneurship and Technology but no progress reports are provided. Should more be done and provided publically to assure more inclusionary practices in futurist activities? 

"Race"-ing to Equity: A Toolkit and Tale of Two Cities - John A. Powell

A great toolkit and tale to be used in urban and rural areas were digital technologies equity are not part of the public policies. Please share your comments or views.

Our understanding of Opportunity has changed over time….

STRUCTURAL RACIALIZATION AND SYSTEMS THINKING



Review the full presentation