By way of commenting as the WA Department of Commerce drafts
proposals to use the next increment of federal BEAD funding, suppose we start
heading by heading with this article from the Benton Foundation and then
comment on selected passages.
The format of this post is Heading level 3 Title of
barrier population article excerpt and then Heading level 4 comment.
https://www.benton.org/blog/washington-state-sets-digital-equity-goals
Washington's
Vision of Digital Equity
Through
extensive public engagement, starting in 2022 and continuing through the summer
of 2023, the Washington State Broadband Office (WSBO) developed a vision for
digital equity. The Washington vision for digital equity is:
Everyone
in Washington has affordable broadband internet technology as well as the tools
and skills needed to participate in our digital society before 2028.
Comment:
This is a worthy
goal. At the same time there are people who for a number of reasons might have
no interest in broadband. Also, pushing everyone toward digitalization should
not serve as a reason to delete people providing services. Technology expands
horizons for many people and in the best case should free up human staff time
to better serve people who for one reason or another really cannot interact
with services online. It seems important to identify ways that everyone in WA
can benefit from affordable broadband even if they personally want nothing to
do with new technology.
Barriers to Digital Equity
In Washington
state, 75.5 percent of the state’s population falls within at least one of
the “covered populations,” with racial and ethnic
minority populations and rural populations making up the largest covered
populations within the state.
Aging
Individuals
In Washington
state, 22 percent of residents are over the age of 60. Aging individuals
in Washington are predominantly white (97%) and receive their income from
Social Security (74%). A majority of aging individuals in Washington are also
considered low-income based on the federal poverty rate (86%). Seniors in
rural areas also need broadband to access critical healthcare services that may
not be available otherwise without having to travel long distances. The
ability to video conference medical professionals allows seniors to choose
where they live while still having access to the services that they need.
With 73
percent of seniors in Washington on Social Security income, about $568 a
month in Washington state, $75 for broadband service can be considered too
expensive. While the Federal Communications Commission's Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP) offers a $30 a month subsidy, or up to $75 per
eligible household on tribal lands, seniors may have difficulties enrolling in
the program, due to a complicated two-step enrollment process, a lack of
availability through their ISP, or general unawareness of the program.
Digital skills
are essential for participating in today’s digital society through activities
such as searching and applying for jobs, accessing benefits, or engaging with
friends and family on social networks. While digital skilling programs exist at
community anchor institutions within Washington, it may be difficult for some
seniors to access services.
Comment:
Tribal connectivity needs focus in collaboration both with people who
live on reservations and people who are dispersed in more urban environments.
WA digital equity projects need to spell out both how to ensure the broadest
possible increase in internet access for households and other entities on
reservations and to identify collaborative efforts ensuring that people with
tribal affiliations in cities have access to support their tribal affiliation
entitles them to.
Barriers for both tribal members and all seniors in general point to
the importance of designing fees and subsidies in ways that allow people, both
households and businesses of different sizes to connect affordably and to
maintain connection affordably over time. I would specifically encourage
evaluation processes that measure how many people who get connected are able to
maintain connection for 6 or 12 months and to consider the need for backup
options for people who need critical connection but because of changed
circumstance can no longer afford it.
For example, during a recent trip to a storefront for my cell service
provider to replace a dead device, I observed 3 different people with billing
issues have to ask the staffperson for a direct connection to billing. At a
bare minimum, after even if service is suspended for non-payment, people should
still be able to connect with service providers billing departments just as
they can connect to 911.
Digital inclusion efforts serving seniors need to take into account
both the critical importance of peer support for some kinds of activities such
as connecting with families, attending religious services, and the ongoing need
for coaching for example to sign into video medical appointments or a generally
slower learning curve, capacity to be very satisfied with the ability to do a
few different activities.
Many seniors I meet complain about interfaces that change regularly,
ad popups, unpredictable or untrustworthy search results, and all the ways ads
can creep into one’s broadband services. Thus digital inclusion means not only
identifying which different forms of broadband development are appropriate in
different areas but also developing a culture of safe and enjoyable use and not
to assume for example that seniors will automatically be comfortable even with
basics such as online shopping or reading a QR code to access a menu at a
restaurant.
Finally, people come into disability at all different phases of life
but changes in function may have more dramatic impact for seniors. People who
can no longer drive need easy access to other options for getting around.
People with changes in hand mobility might need to explore other ways to
interact with their paths for connectivity
Many modern ways people connect to the internet come with a variety of
accessibility features built in. In other cases, seniors may simply be used to
what works for them and not aware of more friendly newer possibilities. Again,
it’s not connectivity until a person has the tools and knowledge needed to do
what they want or need to do. This means for example both equipping people in
direct services with the devices and connectivity they need for personal use
but also equipping them through workforce training or continuing education with
skills to work with the people they serve.
Incarcerated
Individuals
Washington state
has approximately 14,000 individuals in confinement as of June 30, 2023, with
92 percent in state prison.
Currently, the
Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) does not permit incarcerated
individuals access to the internet, as there are concerns about incarcerated
individuals using the internet to conduct illegal
activity. Correctional institutions determine the resources
available for incarcerated individuals to access the outside world, including
access to phone calls, emails, or video calls. Consideration is needed for how
to scale up access to affordable internet services and devices for incarcerated
individuals to stay in communication with friends and family.
For correctional
facilities that do have computer labs or institutional libraries available
for incarcerated individuals, the devices are frequently outdated, limited
in number, only
available at certain times of the day, and highly regulated and
surveillance. Incarcerated individuals need access to updated digital
devices––and the digital skills training to enable full usage of these
devices––to optimize their ability to engage with and become accustomed to the
outside world after release.
Comment
This section of the article makes no mention of the high costs to
families of incarcerated individuals in maintaining contact with loved ones,
one essential element of successful re-entry. Both the state and families
almost certainly need to be getting more for their money.
Incarcerated individuals almost always return to society. Whatever
programs develop to enhance internet access for incarcerated individuals while
inside need to ensure continuous access to devices as people graduate to new
programs. From the administrative side, do people working with formerly
incarcerated individuals need skills to say, use case management software?
Some incarcerated individuals are in county jails. Most of the
comments here apply to people in county jails too but the paths to implement
programs are probably different.
Most WA State prisons are located in rural areas which the WA
Broadband plan should already be targeting to enhance internet infrastructure
with accompanying need for people who work in corrections to increase digital
literacy to take advantage of opportunities that come with enhanced
connectivity .
Realistically, OF COURSE some percentage of incarcerated individuals
would try to engage in more crime if they had more access to the internet.
Other individuals may have bans on internet access as conditions of their
sentences. These are administrative issues and to me seem solvable in the
context of rules and privileges now used in many institutions. In general it’s
not clear to me that the tools needed to contain internet crime in prisons are
different from tools from tools used in the outside world to control access and
monitor various behaviors. What tools and new skills do DoC staff need to
increase and monitor internet usage by people in custody? What demonstration
projects could be launched to begin to test out increased access to the
internet?
Low-Income
Households
In Washington, 10
percent of the population lives in poverty, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau. The Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by
family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total
income is less than the poverty threshold for that family size, then that
family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. By contrast,
the Digital Equity Act's definition is individuals living in households
with incomes not exceeding 150 percent of the poverty level.
Many
Washingtonians have not been able to take advantage of the ACP because they are
unaware of the program, have trouble applying for it, cannot access it because
their service provider does not accept the program, or they simply may not
qualify for the subsidy based on their income. Washington highlights
that ACP is federally funded and that it is uncertain if ACP will be
extended once its current funding is exhausted in 2024.
Low-income
households in Washington expressed a need for greater awareness of available
resources like the ACP, digital navigator programs, and other established
initiatives in the state. Awareness is essential for low-income households
to utilize digital inclusion assets and resources that are publicly available,
and many people are not aware that these resources exist. Additionally, the
reliance on smartphones is very common for low-income households and other
covered populations that struggle to afford updated computer equipment.
Comment
One barrier that should be solvable: programs that administer various
kinds of public assistance need frameworks for including the cost of devices
and internet service into the overall household budgets that set amounts
individuals must pay for rent, medical insurance, and other utilities.
Addressing this concern is as much a policy concern as a technology one. The WA
Broadband plan needs to propose some strategies to ensure that applicable state
agencies do the policy work needed to ensure that individuals maintain the
internet access they need.
As some people’s work environments shift to fewer days in the office
and thus reduced impact on the state transportation network, it is worthwhile
to consider ways increased deployment of broadband might be supported by funds
otherwise required for transportation.
Another important aspect of access continuity is the capabilities of
different kinds of devices. To me it is unclear what the internet equivalent of
people driving a 20-year-old Honda should look like. However, provisions for
device refurbishment and good right to repair legislation is needed both to
allow people to extend the usable life of devices used to access broadband and
also to reduce the volume of e-waste
Individuals
with Language Barriers
U.S. Census
Bureau data indicate that a sizable percentage of Washington residents have
limited proficiency in English and speak another language at home. In
Washington state, 20 percent of the population speaks a language other
than English at home, and about 8 percent of individuals speak English
less than very well, according to the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year
Estimates. That amounts to more than 1.45 million individuals speaking a
language other than English at home, and over 547,000 individuals who have
limited English language proficiency.
People with
language barriers need to access websites and digital services to accomplish
everyday tasks, such as paying their internet service bills, staying up to date
with banking activities, telehealth, and more. Vital information displayed on
digital service platforms should be accessible to individuals with language
barriers in frequently encountered languages, yet that is rarely the
case. Developing digital skills is as important as developing English
literacy skills and there is an opportunity and need for the two curriculums to
be integrated within programs for people with language barriers.
Comments:
The WA state broadband plan should absolutely propose some in-depth
strategies to ensure that broadband programs increase the ability of all levels
of government to meet the language access needs of people they serve. Helpful
measures might include improving connectivity and digital access for
community-based organizations that provide services and training in-language,
requirements in software purchase decisions that software function in more
languages than English, and ensuring that commercial enterprises such as banks
are also meeting the language access needs of customers. I for one do not mind
in the lease when I go to my ATM machine, see screens big enough for me to
interact with, and have to choose which language I want services in because to
me that means the bank is doing its job.
Individuals
with Disabilities
Individuals with
disabilities make up 13 percent of the population within Washington state.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines this as individuals who have difficulty
with hearing, vision, cognition, and ambulation. However, a 2012 report
from the National Disability Rights Network found that due to accessibility
challenges, the disability community is undercounted and misrepresented in the
census. National Disability Rights further found that questions related to
disabilities––such as chronic health and psychiatric disabilities that impact
more than 43 percent of individuals in the U.S.––are not asked about on
the census, thus not capturing the true number of Americans living with
disabilities.
People living
with disabilities have unique challenges to accessing the internet including
website and device accessibility, ability to afford services, digital skills,
or complex systems and languages. Specific disabilities may require special
resources to access the internet, for example, individuals with vision
impairment may need screen readers or audio support to receive the information
on a screen. However, screen readers may not be available on devices such as
cell phones, or websites with photos without descriptive captions.
Washingtonians expressed a need for accessibility tools from ISPs as well as
affordable assistive devices.
Comment:
Census estimates of 13% of the population having some kind of disability
reflects dramatic undercount. Disability Rights WA and other organizations
estimate that 1 in 4 people live with some kind of disability. People with disabilities fall into all of the
categories where comments have already been provided but expanding broadband
access and fully meeting people’s accessibility needs should take into account
some other points.
The list provided above is a decent start about different kinds of
adaptations people need in order to make the best use of technology. Again,
determining which measures are most needed in given situations requires
in-depth knowledge and there should be training paths to cultivate both
in-depth knowledge and mutual peer support by people with similar needs. A good
broadband policy reflects the point that people with disabilities need the same
skills and tools to live daily life as they do at work.
Accessibility is complex. Determining what measures will be most
important in different situations requires analysis. WA state broadband programs
should ensure that all training programs aimed at teaching people to code and
deploy technology also include specific discussion of accessibility needs,
standards, and practices.
Workplaces just should not buy inaccessible software. This is a bold
sweeping step. At a minimum software purchase decisions should involve
accessibility testing with people who have different disabilities.
Public-facing apps and larger applications should never turn off accessibility
features built into devices.
Pitch for National Disabilities Employment awareness month, #NDEAM:
there can never be too many people with disabilities in a workplace even if it
means everyone gets to learn about challenges and workarounds that might also
benefit customers and other employee’s family members.
Finally, technology cannot fix all accessibility problems and “ask a
human” can never go away as an option.
Additional Barrier populations
For the population categories below the
Benton Foundation does a fine job of characterizing issues and the points made
above also address issues for these populations. The other relevant points: how
well can the benefits of improved internet access be measured in terms of
enhanced quality of life, improved health outcomes, greater housing and work
stability, reduced public expenditures, and even increased tax revenues?
No comments:
Post a Comment