The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act sets an ambitious overarching goal: internet for all. But past access and adoption, states are asked to think about how increased access to and use of broadband can drive equitable outcomes in areas like access to health care and essential services, education and job training, and participation in the society, economy, and civic institutions of the Nation.

In planning to achieve digital equity, states are responsible for developing and measuring the key performance indicators (KPIs) that can demonstrate tangible progress toward this goal, along five “measurable objectives:”

1. The availability of, and affordability of access to, fixed and wireless broadband technology;
2. The online accessibility and inclusivity of public resources and services; 
3. Digital literacy;  
4. Awareness of, and the use of, measures to secure the online privacy of, and cybersecurity with respect to, an individual; and
5. The availability and affordability of consumer devices and technical support for those devices. 

In Measuring Measurable Objectives: How States Will Track Digital Equity Progress, we've analyzed state digital equity plans to understand how states are defining these indicators, what existing data sources they are using, what new data they are collecting, and how they are using this information to guide their digital equity work. As states begin implementing their digital equity plans, understanding these metrics and methodologies will allow stakeholders to track the nation’s progress toward universal broadband adoption.

I. Broadband Availability and Affordability

States largely rely on federal data to estimate the availability and affordability of broadband services. Federal data is readily available in a consistent, timely fashion but can lack the detail and precision states need to help make decisions about implementing their digital equity plans. 

For availability, most states use the Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Data Collection (BDC) to estimate the number of unserved and underserved households. However, the BDC data does not include demographic data and therefore cannot establish whether the needs of covered populations are being met. To connect broadband access to household demographics, some states, such as Maryland, turn to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS asks residents about their wireline broadband services but does not include data on their connection speeds. ACS data can also be less reliable for smaller geographies.

Many states are supplementing federal data sources with their own phone or online surveys.

On affordability, the overwhelming majority of states expected to use Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) enrollment data to measure the affordability of broadband service. Many states are also tracking how many ISPs offer low-cost plans for eligible households. Some states are measuring affordability by asking people if they consider broadband too costly. Very rarely are states identifying an explicit affordability threshold.

II. Online Accessibility of Public Records

Of all the measurable objectives, states have the widest range of understanding and measurement of online accessibility and inclusivity. Some states interpret “online accessibility and inclusivity” to mean providing government services online to all residents. Some are focused on specific covered populations, especially people with disabilities and/or people with language barriers. Measurement approaches include auditing websites, surveying residents, and using administrative data.

Some states are measuring whether their residents can effectively use the internet to access these government services. They are framing effective use in terms of residents’ confidence, measuring the “percentage of all survey respondents who say they are very confident using the internet to access government services online.” The states are able to disaggregate this metric and identify specific groups that may require more support.

Some states are taking a more comprehensive view of barriers that hamper people’s ability to access government services online. The Maine Connectivity Authority (MCA) identified a subset of covered populations—specifically, low-income individuals, veterans, people in reentry from incarceration, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with language barriers—as more likely to experience an intense barrier. The MCA will conduct user-focused accessibility audits of critical state resources used most by covered populations. The KPIs will include the results of these audits, as well as the level of confidence covered populations report in accessing government services online.

III. Digital Literacy

States are employing a variety of approaches to building the digital skills of their residents: digital navigator services that offer one-off tech support or tailor instruction, structured training and assessments, and a combination of both. Indicators and measurements are similarly varied.

States trying to measure whether residents have the skills they need to thrive in a digital society must consider a) what it means to be digitally literate and b) how to measure digital literacy. To define digital literacy, states use terms like “core," “basic,” and “foundational” digital skills to refer to a minimum threshold. Some states are deferring on naming specific skills and planning to develop standards and curricula soon. 

A number of states have specified a range of skills in their baseline surveys that they plan to track over the course of their digital equity work. Some states are looking to assessments and evaluations linked to training programs to measure digital skills. A number of states will also use surveys asking respondents to assess their confidence in their digital skills.

IV. Online Privacy and Cybersecurity

Overwhelmingly, states understand privacy and security as a subset of digital skills. 

States' approaches to defining and measuring indicators follow a similar pattern—tracking activities and assessing residents’ skills. As with other skills, states are using surveys to gauge residents’ views on their safety and privacy online.

While self-efficacy can be a useful measure, especially when a lack of confidence can deter people from using the internet, people also do not know what they do not know. Relying on self-reporting about people’s level of skill in dealing with privacy and safety online runs the risk of underestimating the threat.

V. Consumer Devices

Measuring device access is more complicated than it may appear, going beyond whether a resident has a device or not. States may also consider whether residents own a device or share it. How many devices does a person or household need? Should devices meet minimum standards? Can residents maintain these devices? States have developed a variety of measures to track these dimensions of device access. 

A number of states rely on the ACS for device data. However, the ACS question on devices asks whether any member of the household has or uses the device; therefore, these numbers can present an inflated assessment of device access. So some states are supplementing ACS data with survey data.

Some states are interested in the number of devices residents can access as a way to ensure that digital needs are met.  And, in order to understand whether devices are affordable, states are measuring the robustness of the ecosystem that provides free or low-cost devices.

States plan to measure the level of tech support residents can access and track the amount of tech support they provide through digital equity work. Others will use surveys to ask how long it would take respondents to replace their primary device if it were lost or damaged. These states will track the percentage of survey respondents who report that they can get a broken or lost computing device fixed or replaced within a week.

Conclusion

KPIs can serve multiple functions for states:

• Specifying goals and crafting strategies to achieve them. 
• Tracking activities and ensuring implementation is in line with digital equity plans. 
• Measuring whether work is yielding the desired results.

The data states collect in the pursuit of their goals will help to inform their future plans to ensure digital equity. 

Support for this project was provided by AARP. 

Dr. Revati Prasad is the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society's Vice President of Programs. Grace Tepper is a Senior Writing Associate at the Benton Institute. 

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2024. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities