Only one-third of low-income households who meet the eligibility criteria for the Lifeline program actually participate
Where is the Link in the Lifeline?
Understanding Lifeline Awareness, Support & Retention
Among Low-Income Households in Florida
Justin Brown, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Telecommunication
University of Florida
PO Box 118400, 3051 Weimer
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400
Ph. (352) 846-1428 Fax (352) 846-2899
E-mail: jbrown@jou.ufl.edu
Even though the Lifeline and Link-Up programs in the U.S. provide low-income households with the opportunity to receive a ten-dollar subsidy on their local phone bills and up to thirty dollars to help establish service, the participation rates in these programs are suspect. Nationally, the FCC estimates about one-third of low-income households who meet the eligibility criteria for the Lifeline program actually participate. Furthermore, in states like Florida, it is estimated that fewer than 15 percent of the more than 1 million households that qualify actually sign-up to receive a monthly discount. Although universal studies in the 1990s suggest high long distance and toll call charges and preferences to receive cable television are reasons why low-income households don’t subscribe to wireline, previous studies do not specifically measure low-income households awareness concerning the Lifeline program and their perceptions on why qualified households do not enroll or continue to receive discounted telephone service. In addition, previous research does not address low-income households’ beliefs concerning efforts to improve Lifeline awareness and whether the current Lifeline mission should be expanded to include other types of communication services.
To help better understand Lifeline participation and awareness among low-income households, two separate mail surveys were conducted during the fall of 2005. The first survey, based upon a convenience sample of roughly 2200 former BellSouth Florida subscribers during the months of May and June, focused primarily on why low-income households discontinued their wireline phone service. Specifically questions asked former subscribers why they discontinued phone service, how they first learned about Lifeline and whether the Lifeline program should be extended to other communication services. The second survey included a random sample of 2500 low-income households throughout the state of Florida during the fall of 2005. The low-income threshold for the survey was the maximum income level for a two-person household at 135% of the current Federal Poverty Guidelines (at or below $17,321). Specifically questions asked whether households have previous knowledge about Lifeline, why households do not participate, whether the program should be extended to other communication services and what might be done to improve awareness and outreach. In both surveys, demographic questions were included to measure use of communication services, gender, age, race and ethnicity, employment and current involvement in Lifeline eligible government programs.
Results from the above surveys reveal that low-income households in Florida are simply not aware of Lifeline but nevertheless currently use voice services. Less than 20 percent of low-income households were aware of Lifeline and less than ten percent were former or current Lifeline subscribers. Nearly three-quarter of respondents subscribed to wireline telephone service and more than half use cell phones both at home and outside home or work, thus calling into question whether qualified households necessarily need Lifeline. Respondents also gave strong preference for improving Lifeline participation, especially making Lifeline akin to a known program like food stamps and through other marketing efforts, including word of mouth through family member or friends, social workers, community outreach advertising and telephone company mailings.
Among former wireline subscribers who qualify for lifeline, moving was listed by half as a contributing factor and cited by one-third as the most important reason why low-income households voluntarily disconnect their wireline service. When asked why other qualified households do not participate, three-fourths of Lifeline-eligible subscribers listed lack of awareness followed by “don’t understand qualification criteria.” Both of these reasons suggest low-income Floridians lack sufficient knowledge of the Lifeline mission, discount and what it takes to become eligible for the program. Collectively just over half of respondents listed social worker or social service agency as sources of how they first learned about Lifeline. Greater outreach among these sources would more than likely increase Lifeline awareness and participation as more than seventy percent of Lifeline-eligible respondents reported they are participating in a Lifeline-eligible government program that often requires the facilitation of a social service agency and/or social worker. In both surveys, respondents indicated stronger support to continue the current wireline Lifeline mission over expanding the program to include Internet access and cell phones.
URLs
http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/centers/purc/documents/Lifeline-Disconnecting_fr...
http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/centers/purc/documents/Lifeline-Low_income_Repor...
Dr. Justin Brown is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Telecommunication at the University of Florida where he teaches courses in telecommunication regulation and policy. An affiliated researcher with the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida, Professor Brown’s research addresses the application of the First Amendment and regulatory constructs to the Internet as well as telecommunication policy issues involving broadband access, digital television and universal service. His scholarly works have been published in Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Communication Law & Policy, Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, Communication Research, Federal Communications Law Journal and UNESCO’s Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems and he has made numerous paper presentations at conferences organized by the American Educators in Journalism & Mass Communication (AEJMC), Broadcast Education Association (BEA), International Communications Association (ICA), National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and the Telecommunication Policy Research Conference (TPRC). Professor Brown earned graduate degrees at Pennsylvania State University (Ph.D., Mass Communications, 2001) (M.A. Telecommunications Studies, 1997) specializing in telecommunications regulation and policy while working as a research assistant for the Institute for Information Policy and the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment.