9 20,513 1,419 9,634 61 5,954 45 74 755 2,571Alameda

4 20,725 12,430 774 586 2,408 30 23 1,106 3,368Butte

Amador
3,342Calaveras
2 6,759 1,130 1,628 13 432 18 23 173
Colusa
1 3,849 2,779 20 177 215 2 8 197 451Contra Costa
Del Norte
24 129,136 16,821 14,531 1,056 16,379 140 115 3,121 76,973El Dorado
4 20,914 15,641 295 1,002 507 48 124 1,436
Fresno
1,861Glenn
7 33,900 3,869 586 1,041 413 48 21 284 27,638Humboldt
Imperial
1 2,524 1,493 — 122 23 3 5 43 835Inyo
9 50,889 29,706 2,387 804 318 58 80 1,383 16,153Kings
Kern
3,008Lake
3 20,830 15,438 887 466 253 42 26 710
Lassen
1 5,679 2,293 1,430 66 31 4 95 31 1,729Los Angeles
Madera
173 810,743 42,471 122,256 2,550 76,192 1,403 1,165 10,611 554,095Mariposa
3 16,496 10,522 105 499 158 19 22 455
Mendocino
4,716Merced
1 4,008 1,552 264 29 200 2 37 62 1,862Modoc
Monterey
1 3,538 2,881 8 109 37 4 15 72 412Napa
1 2,547 399 79 12 93 6 — 51
Nevada
1,907Orange
141Placer
1 3,723 3,412 25
In Search of Digital Equity:
6 116 3 — 20
Plumas
19 68,114 34,778 2,983 614 1,596 125 40 1,440 26,538Riverside
Sacramento
14 67,166 15,668 10,904 Assessing the Geography
598 11,103 759 141 3,931 24,062San Bernardino
San Diego
no 9 23,809 5,870 2,345 448 752 65 38 598 13,693San Francisco
20 92,161 7,101 5,632 of Digital Divide in California
251 11,103 289 97 2,017 65,671San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
o 8 29,050 4,470 4,758 132 16,306 535 872 20081,911Santa Barbara
66 DECEMBER
11 55,072 7,320 5,599 344 9,402 88 54 1,675 30,590Santa Cruz
Santa Clara
524Shasta
spo 3,476 2,567 67 28 177 3 16 94
Sierra
6 24,746 19,179 414 630 1,185 56 56 1,158 2,068Siskiyou
Solano
3 8,491 6,629 73 689 117 5 — 337 641Sonoma
1 3,275 595 1,218 23 483 16 — 167
Stanislaus
773Sutter
ALI MODARRES, Ph. D. Tehama
1 2,539 1,366 156 47Edmund21 7 8 of Public
74 Affairs 860
G. “Pat” Brown Institute Trinity
1 5,072 3,024 171 59 State University, Los Angeles Tulare
83California26 2 122 1,585
2 3,836 3,164 2 247 23 2 11 196
Tuolumne
191Ventura
341 1,543,580 275,987 189,231 12,709 156,080 3,851 2,362 33,191 870,169Yolo
Yuba
otal100.00100.0017.88 12.26 0.82 10.11 0.25 0.15 2.15 56.37
 Acknowledgment

This research and publication were made possible by a grant from the Community Partnership Committee
through its Applied Research Initiative on access to telecommunications services in California’s underserved
communities, with support from ZeroDivide. The Community Partnership Committee was formed by eight
coalitions of 134 community-based organizations and SBC (now AT&T) to serve underserved communities
throughout California after the SBC/Pacific Telesis merger in 1997.

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 2

The growing prevalence of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) in everyday
life makes it crucial that we continue to assess issues
of access to these technologies, particularly as they
affect lower-socioeconomic groups in urban and rural
areas. Concerns about emerging ICT inequities and
what their consequences may entail have resulted in
the burgeoning of research and publications on the
topic of digital divide, as well as recent initiatives by
a number of public and private entities to implement
policies that attempt to diminish this widening gap. To
further contextualize this issue, a number of scholars,
policymakers, and community advocates have begun
to ask how new technologies might play a role in
furthering the goals of community and economic
development and provision of particular services.
Recent elections have also shown that politicians,
policymakers, and policy advocates have begun to
view ICTs as possible tools for advancing the cause
of democracy, political dialogue, and the construction
of a more engaged civil society. This growing reliance
on ICTs has infused the concern over an emerging
digital divide with other issues, such as economic
development, public safety, health, transportation,
and other quality of life indicators. This is especially
problematic because digital divide manifests not only
across generational and gender differences but also
within social and economic divides.
Our research on Los Angeles County has1
illustrated that given the geography of race,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, digital
divide has a clear spatial dimension, requiring
urgent attention from policymakers. Though our
previous study relied on a commercially available
dataset (as opposed to actual subscription data
from the telecommunication companies), it
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Introduction 1
allowed us to (1) gain a first glimpse into the
coincidence of socioeconomic and technology
indicators at the census-tract level, (2) develop a
methodology that can be used at some point when
the actual subscription and access data from the
telecommunication providers become available,
and (3) begin to explore how this approach may be
utilized to develop area-based policies to diminish
the emerging digital divide.
Relying on the findings of our research on Los
Angeles County, we engaged in this study to examine
the phenomenon of digital divide in the state of
California (at the census-tract level). This analysis
relied on a 2007 dataset, acquired from a commercial
data provider, Claritas, Inc. Here, we examine the
geography of estimated access to technology, pattern,
and type of usage and contextualize this information
within a sociodemographic context. The dataset
acquired for this research contains a larger number of
variables that include the following:
• Computer ownership (desktop and laptop)
• Access to landlines and cell phones
• Type of access to the Internet
(e.g., dial-up, DSL, and cable modem)
• Reasons for accessing Internet
(e.g., e-mail, banking, shopping, and gaming)
These variables, along with estimated 2007
sociodemographic variables, were used to create spatial,
statistical, and visual assessment of how access to
technology varies across the state and within individual
counties. During the first phase of the analysis, we
mapped the individual variables to create a visual
assessment of access to technology and how this pattern
may be related to various sociodemographic indicators.
To provide a better visual tool, we developed a set of
35 maps for each county (see Appendix). These county
3

maps provide a more detailed view of spatial variations
at the local level.
This initial visual assessment was followed by a
statistical analysis during the second phase, which
included the creation of two different indexes. These
methodologies, which will be explained, were based
on our previous research on Los Angeles County. Our
techniques allowed us to analyze the spatial variation
of access to technology as related socioeconomic
characteristics, providing some context for observed
geographic differences within urban and rural areas.
With a final goal of identifying priority areas in the
state, we concluded the study with an overall grouping
of census tracts by their socioeconomic status and
access technology. These final products identify
particular areas that should become the target of
policy intervention, which includes infrastructural
investment as well as an expansion of educational
activities that aim to increase the level of access to
multiple ICTs. Although actual subscription data at
the census-tract level could help us formulate policies
on firmer empirical grounds, we believe that the data
from Claritas, Inc., can adequately provide us with the
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Introduction
methodological groundwork for formulating the first
steps toward the development of equitable policies on
access to technology. In a few years, when the actual
data become available at the census-tract level (from
the telecommunication industry), our study can be
repeated to create a more accurate approximation of
digital divide in the state. This will also allow us to
create a monitoring process that enables the state to
continually fine tune its digital equity policies and
implementation processes.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
While this report provides an overall presentation
of the findings, it also includes a comprehensive atlas
of selected variables and other composite indicators
for the state and each of the 58 counties in California.
This, we hope, will provide a roadmap to an area-based
approach to ameliorate the inequitable digital divide
conditions in the state and, more important, in particular
geographies. Since we have created over 2,000 such
maps, they can only be made available electronically.
Those interested in this particular product should visit
our Web site at http://www.patbrowninstitute.org/.
4

To make the content of this report accessible to a
wide range of readers, we have chosen to discuss our
methodologies within the context of our findings and in
a manner that is, hopefully, accessible to nonacademics.
Even though we briefly mention the types of statistical
analyses employed in this research, we avoid discussing
such techniques in great detail. We trust that those
who are familiar with the techniques will rely on their
knowledge and those who are not can simply read the
results and benefit equally from what they reveal. What
follows is an attempt at describing our findings in a
comprehendible manner, answering many questions
that we had at the beginning of this research or that
were developed as a result of it. We have also tried
to anticipate what other questions might exist on this
important topic. We hope our findings shine some
light on where we are and how we can build toward
a more equitable future for accessing information and
communication technologies.
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC LANDSCAPE
OF THE GOLDEN STATE
Race and Ethnicity
In 2007, there were slightly more than 37 million
individuals living in California (see Table 1). Among
them, more than 42.3% were Non-Hispanic White and
35.8% were Latinos. Non-Hispanic Asian and Non-
Hispanic African Americans made up 12% and 6% of
the population, respectively. However, as Figures 1
through 7 illustrate, these racial and ethnic populations
were distributed unevenly across the state. For example,
while the Non-Hispanic White population was mainly
concentrated in coastal areas in the west and the Sierra
communities to the east, the Non-Hispanic African
American population was residing mainly in South
Los Angeles and East Bay communities in Alameda
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings 2
County. The Native American population was mostly
in Northern and Eastern California counties, as well
as a few Southern California counties, including San
Diego. Non-Hispanic Asian Americans were mostly
residing in the Bay Area, extending to Sacramento, as
well as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties.
Geographic distribution of the Latino population is
strikingly different from others. As Figure 7 illustrates,
Latinos are highly concentrated in the Central Valley
communities and in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San
Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties. These
areas represent both rural and urban settings with
particular socioeconomic characteristics, which will be
described. However, it is noteworthy that a majority
of census tracts, where a large number of Latinos are
found, have a population that is significantly younger
(see Figure 8). This may point to difference in the
family structure (as well as stage in life and family
size) of Latinos. This is particularly important since
these census tracts also portray lower-socioeconomic
status, as measured by the median household income
(see Figure 9).
Table 1. Race and Ethnicity in California
Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres
RACE AND ETHNIC CATEGORIES TOTAL PERCENT
2007 Population 37,075,982 100.0
2007 Non-Hispanic White Population 15,678,282 42.3
2007 Non-Hispanic African American Population 2,239,278 6.0
2007 Non-Hispanic Native American Population 185,990 0.5
2007 Non-Hispanic Asian Population 4,433,354 12.0
2007 Non-Hispanic Pacific Island Population 120,668 0.3
2007 Non-Hispanic Other 73,918 0.2
2007 Non-Hispanic 2 races or more 1,061,524 2.9
2007 Latino Population 13,282,968 35.8
5
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 1. 2007 Non-Hispanic White Population

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 6
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 2. 2007 Non-Hispanic African American Population

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 7
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 3. 2007 Non-Hispanic Native American Population

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 8
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 4. 2007 Non-Hispanic Asian American Population

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 9
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 5. 2007 Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander Population

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 10
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 6. 2007 Non-Hispanic 2 or More Races

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 11
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 7. 2007 Latino Population

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 12
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 8. 2007 Percent Population 18 or Older

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 13
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 9. 2007 Median Household Income

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 14

As Figure 9a suggests, the degree of demographic
integration and segregation varies greatly across the
state. This visualization relies on a technique known as
an entropy index. This index is calculated to measure
the diversity of population in any one tract, giving each
a value that ranges from zero to the logarithmic value
of the number of groups included in the analysis. In
this analysis, a total of seven groups were included,
which means that the value could range from zero
(made up of mostly one racial/ethnic group) to 0.845
(housing an equal number of people from each of the
seven groups). To make the interpretation of these
values more readily understood, the values across
all census tracts in the state were grouped into four
categories: (1) integrated (those with values larger
than one standard deviation from the mean of entropy
index), (2) moderately integrated (those with values
that fall within one standard deviation above the mean,
inclusive of the mean value), (3) moderately segregated
(those within one standard deviation below the mean),
and (4) segregated (those smaller than one standard
deviation below the mean). Note that, here, the words
integration and segregation simply suggest the degree of
demographic diversity in any one census tract. Figure
9a provides a snapshot of how these values vary across
the state. Combining this figure with Table 2 allows us
to see what this indexing reveals. First, a number of
rural counties with a significant concentration of one
population group score very highly on segregation.
These include Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado,
Mariposa, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou,
Trinity, and Tuolumne counties. More than 50% of
census tracts in these counties were categorized as
demographically segregated (or consisting mostly
of one racial/ethnic group). Second, rural areas are
not the only ones with such status. In Marin County,
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
also, more than half of census tracts are home to a
highly homogenous population. Third, given that this
index simply reveals the degree of population mixing
among the seven racial/ethnic groups, less integrated
areas can appear across various socioeconomic status,
including smaller and more well-to-do regions. This
is made apparent by Figure 9a, where it is possible to
see that in Southern California and in the Bay Area,
African American and Latino neighborhoods, as well as
well-to-do communities, are marked by “segregation”
or lack of racial and ethnic diversity. As Table 3
suggests, the entropy value is negatively correlated
with the presence of Latinos. This is similarly true
for the Non-Hispanic White population, but with a
lesser impact. These results suggest that demographic
integration levels increase as the number of African
American, Asian, Pacific Islander, and “Other” racial
and ethnic groups grows in a census tract. However,
as Latinos and Non-Hispanic Whites grow in numbers,
the likelihood of integration or diversity of racial and
ethnic groups diminishes. In other words, Latino and
Non-Hispanic White neighborhoods are more likely
to lack a significant presence of other racial and ethnic
groups. Given that Latino and Non-Hispanic White
percentages are negatively correlated at -0.79 (Pearson
correlation value, significant at 0.00), it is clear that
these two groups are also less likely to co-reside in a
census tract.
Education
Slightly more than half of all Californians have
an educational attainment level that ranges from a
high school diploma to an associate degree (see Table
4). Those with a bachelor’s degree or better make up
about a quarter of all Californians. This educational
attainment level, if it were equally distributed among
15
 Methodology and Findings

Table 2. Integration and Segregation Patterns by California Counties (Values Represent the number of Census Tracts in Each Category)
Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

2007 INTEGRATION STATUS 2007 INTEGRATION STATUS

Moderately Moderately Total No. of Moderately Moderately Total No. of

Integrated Integrated Segregated Segregated Census Tracts Integrated Integrated Segregated Segregated Census Tracts

Alameda County 150 115 51 5 321 Orange County 61 237 183 96 577
Alpine County 0 0 1 0 1 Placer County 0 4 25 22 51
Amador County 1 0 0 6 7 Plumas County 0 0 1 5 6
Butte County 2 11 14 15 42 Riverside County 51 148 94 49 342
Calaveras County 0 0 3 4 7 Sacramento County 131 70 69 9 279
Colusa County 0 2 3 0 5 San Benito County 0 2 5 1 8
Contra Costa County 55 61 39 13 168 San Bernardino County 46 98 80 19 243
Del Norte County 0 3 3 0 6 San Diego County 100 217 191 97 605
El Dorado County 0 4 8 24 36 San Francisco County 34 95 38 9 176
Fresno County 31 63 50 14 158 San Joaquin County 56 37 27 1 121
Glenn County 0 1 5 0 6 San Luis Obispo County 1 5 25 13 44
Humboldt County 0 3 12 12 27 San Mateo County 29 73 40 12 154
Imperial County 0 6 11 12 29 Santa Barbara County 1 31 36 18 86
Inyo County 0 1 3 3 7 Santa Clara County 63 188 82 8 341
Kern County 8 51 47 34 140 Santa Cruz County 0 7 26 19 52
Kings County 3 13 9 0 25 Shasta County 0 2 14 17 33
Lake County 0 1 10 1 12 Sierra County 0 0 0 1 1
Lassen County 1 1 2 3 7 Siskiyou County 0 0 6 8 14
Los Angeles County 282 696 594 476 2048 Solano County 53 17 10 0 80
Madera County 1 3 8 7 19 Sonoma County 1 20 46 19 86
Marin County 2 5 15 29 51 Stanislaus County 4 49 33 3 89
Mariposa County 0 0 1 3 4 Sutter County 1 13 4 0 18
Mendocino County 0 5 10 4 19 Tehama County 0 1 6 4 11
Merced County 1 30 14 2 47 Trinity County 0 0 1 3 4
Modoc County 0 0 3 1 4 Tulare County 0 20 44 12 76
Mono County 0 0 2 0 2 Tuolumne County 0 1 0 9 10
Monterey County 9 22 25 27 83 Ventura County 6 39 83 27 155
Napa County 3 3 17 4 27 Yolo County 4 27 6 0 37
Nevada County 0 0 1 17 18 Yuba County 2 7 1 2 12

Note: 12 Census tracts had no values. Total (State of California) 1193 2508 2137 1199 7037

Table 3. Correlation between entropy value and percentage of various racial and ethnic groups
Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Percent Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic Non-Hispanic other racial &
Entropy Latino White African American Native Americans Asian Pacific Islander ethnic groups

Entropy Pearson Correlation 1.00 -0.225 -0.144 0.293 0.017 0.404 0.341 0.465
Sig. (2-tailed) — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037
Bold values indicate that correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 16
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 9a. 2007 Diversity Status

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 17
 Methodology and Findings

Table 4. 2007 Educational Attainment, Age 25+ all social and demographic groups (and geographies),
Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres
could suggest a significant achievement for the state.
POPULATION PERCENT
However, as Figures 10 through 17 and Table 5 suggest,
Less than 9th Grade 2,736,903 11.63
this educational attainment level is far from equitable.
Some High School, No Diploma 2,780,088 11.81
High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 4,757,863 20.22 As Table 5 illustrates, the percentage of Latinos in a
Some College, No Degree 5,410,587 22.99 census tract is highly and positively correlated with
Associate Degree 1,682,009 7.15
lower educational attainment (and, negatively, with
Bachelor’s Degree 3,970,877 16.87
Master’s Degree 1,394,201 5.92 higher educational attainment). This phenomenon is
Professional School Degree 532,023 2.26 reversed in the case of Non-Hispanic White population.
Doctorate Degree 266,820 1.13
While African Americans display similar conditions
Total 23,531,371 100.00
as Latinos, the correlation values are smaller (possibly

Table 5. Correlation between geographic distribution of racial and ethnic groups and educational attainment (2007 Population Age
25+)Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

Some High School

Less than High School Graduate Some College Associate Bachelor’s Master’s Professional Doctorate
9th Grade No Diploma (Incl. Equivalency) No Degree Degree Degree Degree School Degree Degree

Percent Latino
Pearson Correlation 0.769 0.558 0.071 -0.255 -0.334 -0.552 -0.552 -0.459 -0.408
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037
Percent Non-Hispanic White
Pearson Correlation -0.670 -0.503 -0.050 0.248 0.259 0.436 0.450 0.441 0.340
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037
Percent Non-Hispanic African American
Pearson Correlation 0.027 0.154 0.051 0.004 -0.040 -0.157 -0.156 -0.158 -0.134
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.708 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037
Percent Non-Hispanic Native Americans
Pearson Correlation -0.0520 0.0172 0.0394 -0.0033 -0.0344 -0.1135 -0.1101 -0.0952 -0.0815
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0000 0.1482 0.0010 0.7801 0.0039 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037
Percent Non-Hispanic Asian
Pearson Correlation -0.083 -0.135 -0.082 -0.036 0.116 0.269 0.248 0.104 0.184
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037
Percent Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander
Pearson Correlation 0.0007 0.0562 0.0592 0.0231 0.0120 -0.0777 -0.1150 -0.1241 -0.0998
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.9554 0.0000 0.0000 0.0527 0.3130 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037
Percent other racial and ethnic groups
Pearson Correlation -0.352 -0.226 0.030 0.150 0.195 0.205 0.169 0.101 0.123
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 18
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 10. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with Less than 9th Grade Education

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 19
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 11. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with some High School Education

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 20
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 12. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with High School Education

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 21
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 13. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with some College Education

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 22
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 14. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with Associate Degree

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 23
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 15. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with Bachelor’s Degree

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 24
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 16. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with Master’s Degree

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 25
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 17. 2007 Percent Population 25 Years and Older with Doctoral Degree

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 26

caused by having a smaller population). For Asian
population, a higher level of concentration is positively
correlated with the presence of individuals with a
bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree. Due to their
smaller population, Native American and Pacific Islander
population do not show such a correlation pattern.
The correlation pattern displayed in Table 5 has a
particular geographic consequence (Figures 10 through
17). Central California, where Latinos are highly
concentrated, has some of the largest concentrations of
people with less than a ninth-grade education (compare
Figures 7 and 10). Conversely, areas with the highest
presence of people with college degrees are where
Non-Hispanic Whites and people with high median
household incomes can be found (compare Figures 9,
15, 16, and 17).
Table 6. 2007 Employed Civilian Population, Age 16+ by Occupation
Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres
POPULATION
Management, Business and
Financial Operations Occupations 2,383,214
Professional and Related Occupations 3,470,745
Service Occupations 2,406,519
Sales and Office Occupations 4,370,751
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 224,977
Construction, Extraction and Maintenance Occupations 1,384,034
Production Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 2,083,955
Total 16,324,195
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
Occupation
Given the educational achievement and median
household income patterns, it should not come
as a surprise that the geography of occupation in
California reveals a significant level of divide, as
well. As Figure 18 illustrates, counties in Central
California, from Kern to Glenn, a few coastal
counties, and the Imperial Valley house the largest
concentration of those employed in farming, fishing,
and forestry occupations. These are also areas where
Latinos are highly concentrated, median household
incomes are relatively low, and very few census
tracts portray a high level of educational attainment.
While construction, but more obviously production,
jobs seem to be concentrated in low-income urban
neighborhoods (see Figures 19 and 20), management,
business, and financial occupations coincide closely
with high-income neighborhoods, where minorities
are minimally represented (see Figure 22). This
pattern is repeated in the case of professional jobs
PERCENT
(see Figure 23) but reversed for service-oriented
14.60
occupations (see Figure 24).
21.26
14.74
26.77
1.38
8.48
12.77
100.00
27
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 18. 2007 Percent Population Working in Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 28
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 19. 2007 Percent Population Working in Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 29
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 20. 2007 Percent Population Working in Production Transport and Material Moving Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 30
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 21. 2007 Percent Population Working in Sales and Office Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 31
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 22. 2007 Percent Population Working in Management, Business, and Financial Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 32
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 23. 2007 Percent Population Working in Professional and Related Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 33
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 24. 2007 Percent Population Working in Service Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 34
 Methodology and Findings

Socioeconomic Index is a common methodology for constructing and

As this and other analyses of race and ethnicity
in California have suggested, neighborhood-level
socioeconomic status appears to be highly correlated
with demographic conditions. This spatial covariation
does suggest that creating composite socioeconomic
indexes not only is possible but also, for the purpose of
studies such as this, will allow us to examine the social
and economic structure of a phenomenon (e.g., digital
divide) in a more substantial and comprehensive
manner. The use of factor analysis or factorial ecology
mapping such indexes in geographic analyses. For
California, I have conducted a similar analysis, using
educational attainment, occupation, and median
household income. The result of this analysis is
displayed in Table 7. This analysis was able to create 3
composite variables from the original 17 socioeconomic
variables. The three indexes, collectively, explain
79.6% of the variation in the original data. As the
loading patterns suggest, the first index is capable
of identifying those areas with a population that has

Table 7. Factor Analysis

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

SOCIOECONOMIC INDEXES

LOWER EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT EDUCATED WITH LOWER EDUCATIONAL

WITH SALES, SERVICE, AND PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENT AND
VARIABLES BLUE-COLLAR OCCUPATIONS OCCUPATIONS LOW INCOME POPULATION

Age 25+: < 9th Grade — — 0.888

Age 25+: Some High School, No Diploma 0.577 — 0.616
Age 25+: High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 0.895 — —
Age 25+: Some College, No Degree 0.891 0.313 —
Age 25+: Associate Degree 0.801 0.429 —
Age 25+: Bachelor’s Degree 0.305 0.879 —
Age 25+: Master’s Degree — 0.934 —
Age 25+: Professional School Degree — 0.848 —
Age 25+: Doctorate Degree — 0.809 —
Age 16+: Management, Business and Financial Operations Occupations 0.397 0.834 —
Age 16+: Professional and Related Occupations 0.374 0.863 —
Age 16+: Service Occupations 0.807 — 0.330
Age 16+: Sales and Office Occupations 0.834 0.438 —
Age 16+: Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations — — 0.734
Age 16+: Construction, Extraction and Maintenance Occupations 0.853 — —
Age 16+: Production Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 0.658 — 0.534
Median Household Income — 0.599 -0.331
Initial Eigenvalue 6.9 5.3 1.3
Percent of Variance 40.7 31.1 7.8
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings 5.5 5.5 2.5
Percent of Variance 32.6 32.3 14.6

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 35
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 25. 2007 SES I Lower Education with Sales, Service and Blue-Collar Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 36
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 26. 2007 SES II Educated with Professional Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 37
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 27. 2007 SES III Low Education, Low Income Population

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 38

achieved a mid-range level of educational attainment,
and it works in sales, service, construction, extraction,
maintenance, production transportation, or material
moving occupations. The second index is associated
with areas that house a highly-educated population
with occupations such as management, business and
financial operations, and related professions. The
third index identifies typically rural areas with lowest
educational attainment among a population who
is mainly working in farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations and achieves an overall low median
household income.
Figures 25 through 27 illustrate how these three
indexes map across the state. The first index (SES I)
attains higher values in urban and rural communities,
where sales and service occupations are major sources
of employment. Geographically, these are found in
a number of eastern counties, from Riverside to the
Sierras, and in some of the central and coastal counties.
Most significant is the fact that in central California
counties, where farming exceeds other occupations,
this index scores low.
The second index (SES II) clearly identifies high-
income areas of Southern California, the Bay Area,
and other coastal communities. It is striking that the
third index (SES III) clearly highlights the farming
communities in central California and elsewhere
(despite its lower eigenvalue), suggesting the
suitability of this index for evaluating how equitably
particular services and public goods are distributed.
For the purpose of this study, I rely on this index
to assess the degree of our regional equity in the
distribution of ICTs.
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
To assess the geography of access to ICTs, I relied
on the information provided by Claritas, Inc, for 2007.
This database provided the number of households per
census tracts having access to a particular technology
or using a selected application. I selected 28 variables to
conduct my analyses. These were as follows:
1. Owning a desktop
2. Owning a laptop
These two variables provide an indication for
the basic level of access to computer technology.
3. Owning one cell phone
4. Owning two cell phones
5. Owning more than two cell phones
6. Owning more than three cell phones
7. Owning more than four cell phones
8. Owning more than five cell phones
Based on our previous analysis of Los Angeles County,
we were keenly aware of the importance of cell phones
as an important piece of communication technology.
These devices can easily replace traditional (landline)
phones and provide access to the Internet and other
Web-based information and services. In our focus
group meetings, the various participants helped
increase awareness about the functional aspects of
cell phones across socioeconomic sectors and, more
pronouncedly, among the younger population. For
that reason, I made sure that these variables were
included in the database. Unlike other variables,
having information on the number of cell phones
available to a household allows us both to assess
39

the level of access to this technology to all household
members and to determine the socioeconomic status
associated with having multiple phones. Though
family plans, offered by many providers, have reduced
the cost associated with having multiple cell phones,
it is nonetheless a costly affair that may distinguish
between lower-socioeconomic groups and others.
9. Having dial-up Internet
10. Having cable Internet
11. Having DSL
This information allows us to see how households
access the Internet and whether the geographic
patterns of these variables will reveal the infrastructural
backbone of access to the broadband.
12. Having zero wire line
This singular variable provides us with an indication
of how badly some areas may remain disconnected.
13. Use Internet to send and receive e-mail
14. Use Internet for text-based chat or instant messaging
15. Use Internet for voice-based chat or instant messaging
16. Use Internet to send pictures
17. Use Internet to send video e-mails
These five variables allow us to examine how Internet
is used for communication purposes.
18. Use Internet for online banking
19. Use Internet for shopping
20. Use Internet to search online Yellow Pages
21. Use Internet to download/purchase music
22. Use Internet to download video
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
23. Use Internet to visit/publish to an online community
24. Use Internet to download/purchase games
25. Use Internet to play games alone
26. Use Internet to play multiplayer games
27. Use Internet to listen to streaming audio
28. Use Internet to watch streaming video
29. Use Internet to watch TV
These 12 variables provide a reasonable indication
of how Internet is used based on content and interest
of the user. With the exception of a few of them, the
significant majority of these uses require high-speed
connection and access to well-equipped computers.
These 29 variables were mapped to provide an
overall assessment of access to technology. This was
followed with detailed analysis of how these variables,
individually and cumulatively, relate to socioeconomic
and demographic indicators. The following provides an
overview of these findings. Readers may wish to review
(in addition to the maps included here) the Appendix
to this report, which contains 35 selected maps for each
county in the state.
Spatial Patterns of Access to Technology
Figures 28 and 29 reveal patterns of desktop and
laptop ownership by census tract. As expected, while
desktops are more abundantly available throughout the
state, achieving rates above 90% in many neighborhoods
and sliding to rates below 50% in low-income areas,
nearly two thirds of all census tracts have household-
laptop ownership rates below 25% and, more important,
400 census tracts have laptop ownership rates below
10% (for households). These tracts are mostly located
in low-income urban and rural areas. The significant
difference in desktop and laptop ownership rates by
40
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 28. 2007 Percent of Households Own PC

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 41
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 29. 2007 Percent Households with Laptops

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 42
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 30. 2007 Percent Households with 1 Cell Phone

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 43
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 31. 2007 Percent Households with 2 Cell Phone

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 44
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 32. 2007 Percent Households with 2+ Cell Phone

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 45
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 33. 2007 Percent Households with 3+ Cell Phone

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 46
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 34. 2007 Percent Households with 4+ Cell Phone

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 47
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 35. 2007 Percent Households with 5+ Cell Phone

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 48

census tract suggests that access to mobile computing is
more clearly affected by socioeconomic status.
The observed socioeconomic pattern in desktop and
laptop ownership is equally manifested in patterns of
access to cell phones. Figures 30 through 35 illustrate
how the number of cell phones per household varies
across the state. While having one cell phone seems
to be prevalent in low- income areas, having multiple
cell phones per household occurs in areas with higher-
socioeconomic status. There are at least three lessons to
be learned immediately. First, in low- income areas, the
use of cell phones is becoming more common, perhaps
replacing the traditional landline phones. Second, while
one cell phone per household may meet the minimum
need of a household for communication purposes,
having access to multiple phones, which improves the
communication ability of multiple household members,
is highly related to the socioeconomic status. Third,
the greatest shift in access to multiple phones occurs
between households having 2+ or 3+ cell phones (see
Figures 32 and 33). While at 2+ level, over 1,400 census
tracts had 60% or better rates, at 3+ level, none achieved
this rate. In fact, only slightly over 200 tracts achieved
rates of about 30%. At 4+ or 5+ number of cell phones
per household, census tract level rates declined to 15%
and 5%, respectively, for the highest categories.
This pattern of access to cell phones is of particular
importance to those concerned with digital divide.
Clearly, as mobile devices supplement or replace
computers for accessing the Internet and the information
it provides, as well as for engaging in multiple modes
of communication, such as sending e-mails and text
messages, it becomes crucial that policies regarding
the expansion of broadband and access to ICTs include
full consideration of how we may increase access to
cell phones and smart phones. From a private sector
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
perspective, this may require a reassessment of pricing
plans or subscription fees.
Beyond PCs and cell phones, access to the Internet,
its pattern of usage, and the level of access to various
Internet contents provides a more complete picture of
the nature of digital divide and how it may be related
to the underlying geography of race, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status. Furthermore, an evaluation
of these patterns allows us to develop a better
understanding of how market forces may be shaping
the geography of access to ICTs.
Figures 36 through 38 illustrate how Californians
are connected to the Internet. While dial-up rates
rarely exceed 25% in any one census tract, this type of
connection remains a viable option in more rural areas
with minimal availability of cable and DSL, or where the
price for these faster modes of connection is prohibitive.
Northeastern and western sections of Santa Barbara and
southwestern areas of Colusa and Butte counties are
among the highest users of dial-up services. However,
as Figure 36 indicates, in less populated areas of King,
Fresno, and other counties in Central California and the
Sierras, many households rely on this service to connect
to the Internet also.
Contrary to the observed pattern of dial-up usage,
cable appears to be an important choice for less
economically strapped urban neighborhoods. This is
similarly true for DSL services. This suggests that location
is not only a good predictor of one’s socioeconomic
status but also access to the infrastructural backbone
and service nodes within our society. To illustrate this
point, Figure 38a was constructed to map the level of
Internet disconnectivity by geographic location. For
each census tract, I have calculated the percentage of
households that do not have access to the Internet,
whether by dial-up, cable, or DSL. Assuming that, given
49
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 36. 2007 SES II Educated with Professional Occupations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 50
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 37. 2007 Percent Households with Cable Internet

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 51
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 38. 2007 Percent Households with DSL Internet

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 52
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 38a. 2007 Percent Households without Dial-up, DSL, or Cable Internet

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 53
 Methodology and Findings

their socioeconomic status, it is improbable that these
households have their own sophisticated technologies,
such as a personal dish or Internet-ready cell phones
that can act as a modem for a computer. We can also
assume that the calculated figures are a reasonable
approximation of not having access to the Internet.
Figure 38a clearly identifies portions of the state that
are being left behind in the digital age. These locations
are mostly in rural northern California, eastern portions
of Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as
well as isolated tracts from Inyo and King to Tuolumne,
Mariposa, and Amador counties. Overall, there are 252
census tracts (or 3.6% of all tracts) where 60% or more of
the resident households do not have access to dial-up,
cable, or DSL services (see Table 8). In 2007, these tracts
housed over 990,000 individuals who were racially and
ethnically identified as follows: 36.4% Non-Hispanic
White, 9.8% Non-Hispanic African American, 1.3%
Non-Hispanic Native American, 8.9% Non-Hispanic
Asian, and 40.9% Latino. On average, households
in these tracts achieved a median household income
that was slightly more than half of the average for all
census tracts in the state. By comparison, areas that
did not meet this criterion housed a population that
was 42.5% Non-Hispanic White, 5.9% Non-Hispanic
African American, 12% Non-Hispanic Asian American,
and 35.7% Latino, earning median household incomes
that were on the average larger than those in all tracts
in the state.
This unequal pattern of access to the Internet is
further exacerbated by the inadequacy of available
wirelines in low-income neighborhoods, located either
in urban areas or rural communities in central and
northern California (see Figure 39). Cumulatively,
this translates to a significant digital divide in the
world of ICTs, creating obstacles to economic and
community development efforts. Among the 252 tracts,
where more than 60% of the households did not have
access to dial-up, cable, or DSL, 114 were estimated to
have zero wirelines for at least 20% of their resident
households. These tracts are located across multiple
counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa,

Table 8. Demographic Indicators for the Prevalence of Access to the Internet

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

PERCENT HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT DIAL-UP, CABLE, AND DELL ALL CENSUS TRACTS

DOES NOT EXCEED 60% EXCEEDS 60% TOTAL

NO. OF TRACTS SUM MEAN NO. OF TRACTS SUM MEAN NO. OF TRACTS SUM MEAN

2007 Population 6774 36,045,808 5,321 252 990,647 3,931 7026 37,036,455 5,271
2007 Non-Hispanic White Population 6774 15,304,796 2,259 252 360,463 1,430 7026 15,665,259 2,230
2007 Non-Hispanic African American Population 6774 2,132,614 315 252 97,126 385 7026 2,229,740 317
2007 Non-Hispanic Native American Population 6774 172,883 26 252 12,742 51 7026 185,625 26
2007 Non-Hispanic Asian Population 6774 4,342,967 641 252 88,722 352 7026 4,431,689 631
2007 Non-Hispanic Pacific Island Population 6774 118,183 17 252 2,357 9 7026 120,540 17
2007 Non-Hispanic Other 6774 72,094 11 252 1,473 6 7026 73,567 10
2007 Non-Hispanic 2 races or more 6774 1,038,753 153 252 22,467 89 7026 1,061,220 151
2007 Median Household Income 6774 418,760,443 61,819 252 8,172,241 32,430 7026 426,932,684 60,765
2007 Latino Population 6774 12,863,518 1,899 252 405,297 1,608 7026 13,268,815 1,889

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 54
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 39. 2007 Percent Households without Wireline

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 55
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 40. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Send and Receive Email

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 56
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 41. 2007 Percent Households use Internet for Chat/IM

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 57
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 42. 2007 Percent Households use Internet for Chat/IM with Voice

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 58
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 43. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Send Pictures

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 59
 Methodology and Findings

Fresno, Imperial, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco,
San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Solano, and
Stanislaus. However, 73 of them are to be found in
Los Angeles County. To confirm the socioeconomic
status of these tracts, it is sufficient to know that only
31 of these tracts reported a median household income
exceeding $25,000 and none exceeded $45,000.
For those with access to the Internet, content
and type of usage are important considerations. As
mentioned earlier, 17 variables were included in this
analysis to assess how households use the Internet.
Figures 40 through 56 provide maps of these indicators
for the state. Overall, it is clear that functions such as
e-mailing, text-based instant messaging, sending
pictures, online banking, shopping, searching
Yellow Pages, playing games (alone), and listening
to streaming audio are among the most popular
uses of the Internet, attracting as many as 40% or
more of the households in some census tracts. In
fact, e-mailing and shopping are among the top two
activities in this regard. Spatial patterns of usage
across the high-ranking activities remain similar,
with urban and suburban middle-class communities
and high-income areas dominating the landscape of
usage. However, two particular applications, playing
games (alone) and listening to streaming audio,
display a geographically concentrated pattern.

Table 9. Technology Indicators (number and percent of Households using a particuar service or utility)
Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

Max. No. of Households Total No. Percent of Average No. Standard

in any one Census Tract of Households Households Households Deviation

Household Base for Technology Variables 14,025 12,461,651 100.0 1768 933
Has Internet–Cable 5,074 3,250,859 26.1 461 309
Has Internet–DSL 4,073 2,953,657 23.7 419 261
Has Internet–Dial Up 2,189 1,777,351 14.3 252 145
Wireline Zero 1,518 1,446,597 11.6 205 144
Chat/Instant Messaging with Text 4,807 3,638,645 29.2 516 324
Chat/Instant Messaging with Voice 1,801 1,345,462 10.8 191 121
Download Video Content 997 741,418 5.9 105 72
Download/Purchase Games 1,558 1,094,786 8.8 155 102
Download/Purchase Music 3,414 2,082,354 16.7 295 212
Listen to Streaming Audio 4,302 2,884,833 23.1 409 280
Online Banking 7,610 5,180,702 41.6 735 482
Play Games Alone 5,717 4,134,046 33.2 586 364
Play Multi-Player Games 2,614 1,801,332 14.5 256 165
Send Pictures 7,211 4,749,423 38.1 674 445
Send Videos 2,024 1,366,233 11.0 194 128
Send Email 9,570 7,014,779 56.3 995 605
Online Shopping 8,396 5,655,815 45.4 802 521
Visit/Publish to Online Community 2,730 2,148,152 17.2 305 208
Watch Internet TV 1,285 961,679 7.7 136 91
Watch Streaming Video 4,296 2,967,346 23.8 421 286
Online Yellow Pages 6,778 4,533,519 36.4 643 421

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 60
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 44. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Send Video Email

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 61
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 45. 2007 Percent Households use Internet for Online Banking

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 62
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 46. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Shop

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 63
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 47. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Search Online Yellow Pages

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 64
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 48. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Download/Purchase Music

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 65
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 49. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Download Video

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 66
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 50. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Visit/Publish to Online Community

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 67

As Figures 52 and 54 illustrate, only a small set of
census tracts in Southern California and the Bay area
has a large proportion of its households engaged
in these activities (above 50% for games and 40%
for streaming audio). At rates below 40% and 30%,
respectively, the geography of usage more closely
resembles other high-ranking categories.
Among the emerging new Internet utilities,
instant messaging with voice, sending videos by e-
mail, downloading/purchasing music, downloading
video, visiting and publishing to online communities,
downloading and purchasing games, watching streaming
video, engaging in multiplayer games, and watching
Internet TV are included in this study, not only to
assess their usage patterns but also to further illustrate
the degree to which socioeconomic status and the
speed of connectivity affect how advanced applications
are utilized. For example, although voice-based instant
messaging and sending videos by e-mail act as more
sophisticated modes of communication, they are
highly reliant on uninterrupted high-speed connection.
However, downloading and purchasing music requires
a particular socioeconomic status and consumption
habit, in addition to high-speed connectivity. This
difference is illustrated by a comparison of Figures
44 and 48. While a large number of tracts fall in the
10% to 15% category (the middle range) for sending
video e-mails, downloading music seems to narrow
to smaller set of tracts, starting with the middle-range
category. In fact, tracts where 25% or more of the
households download/purchase music are mostly
found in well-to-do urban and suburban sections of the
Bay Area and Southern California. There are only 427
such tracts (about 6% of all tracts), located mostly in
Los Angeles (79 tracts), San Francisco (64 tracts), Santa
Clara (56 tracts), Orange (37 tracts), and Riverside (34
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
tracts) counties. These tracts house 2.7 million people,
consisting mostly of 1.3 million Non-Hispanic Whites,
0.5 million Non-Hispanic Asian Americans, and 0.6
million Latinos. The median household incomes in
these 427 census tracts are mostly high, with the highest
one exceeding $240,000.
The enabling role of high-speed connection in
promoting the use of particular Internet application and
content is also visible for activities such as downloading
large video files or watching Internet TV. As Table 9
illustrates, only 7.7% of all households in California
use their Internet connection to watch TV. At 5.9%,
downloading video contents from the Internet occurs
at even a lower rate. As speed and bandwidth improve,
these functions will attract a higher number of users.
However, if this improvement occurs simply according
to the existing patterns of access and usage, low-income
urban and rural communities will not be able to benefit
from these services.
Statistical Analysis of the Geography
of Access to Technology
In the previous section, the overall patterns of access
to ICTs were discussed, suggesting how these patterns
may reveal particular rural-urban, socioeconomic, and
racial/ethnic digital divides. In this section, I examine
these patterns statistically and attempt to develop a
better understanding of how various variables may
explain the observed patterns of access to various
information and communication technologies. This
analysis is done in two phases. First, I use the results
of a correlation analysis to establish the basic level of
relationship between various variables. The second
section builds on these findings to arrive at more
refined conclusions, relying on various multivariate
statistical techniques.
68
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 51. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Download/Purchase Games

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 69
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 52. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Play Games Alone

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 70
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 53. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Play Multi-player Games

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 71
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 54. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Listen to Streaming Audio

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 72

As Table 102 indicates, SES I has relatively
low correlation values across all variables. As
implied previously, this variable has lower ability
to provide a clear indication of socioeconomic
divide in the state. This is partially caused by the
fact that it includes service occupations, which
could include a range of income potentials and
spatial distribution. As such, while the index may
be useful for understanding how socioeconomic
variables are structurally related, it is less useful
for understanding the emergent fractures within
our social geography. Contrary to this variable,
SES II and SES III are able to more clearly provide
the observed social and economic differences. As
indicated before, SES II is capable of identifying
areas with a significant concentration of high-
income population engaged in professional
occupations, and SES III can identify rural areas
with a large number of people employed in
farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.
Looking across Table 10, it is clear that SES
II is positively correlated with desktop and
laptop ownership (slightly higher for the latter),
having more than two cell phones, access to the
Internet via cable and DSL, using various modes
of instant messaging, e-mailing, and all types of
Internet usage. It is interesting that ownership of
one cell phone is correlated negatively with this
variable. This suggests that in areas with high-
socioeconomic status, households are not likely to
house a population that relies on a single cell phone
and each member will have his or her own cell
phone. Surprisingly, this variable (having access
to only one cell phone) appears to be capable of
distinguishing areas with a large number of lower-
socioeconomic households from others.
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
Internet usage variables with the highest
correlation values with SES II are online shopping,
e-mailing, online banking, and sending pictures.
This suggests a high reliance on the Internet for
communication and economic transactions among
the well-to-do households in California. As Table
10 indicates, these households live in areas with
a particular racial and ethnic structure. The high
positive correlation between SES II and Non-
Hispanic White, a smaller, but positive, correlation
with the Non-Hispanic Asian population, and
a negative correlation with all other racial and
ethnic groups confirms that the emergent digital
divide in California may have a particular
racial/ethnic dimension, as well. This is further
illustrated by SES III, which appears to be the
opposite of SES II in its patterns of correlation with
technology variables and racial/ethnic indicators.
In fact, most technology variables are negatively
correlated with this index, while concentration
of Latinos is positively correlated. Since SES III
increases in value where rural populations are
found, the results can clearly suggest that a rural-
urban divide is exacerbated by social class and
racial/ethnic differences.
SES III correlates positively with having one cell
phone, zero wirleines, and a Latino population,
providing a particular picture of digital divide
in California. As the Latino population in a rural
census tract increases, access to cable and DSL,
as well as any chance of using the broadband for
any Internet activity, diminishes. Households in
these areas are more likely to rely on a single cell
phone, having no access or no need for wirelines
(note the positive correlation between having
one cell phone and zero wirelines). Once again,
73
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 55. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Watch Streaming Video

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 74
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 56. 2007 Percent Households use Internet to Watch Internet TV

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 75
 Methodology and Findings

Table 10. Correlations

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

% Internet Use

% with 2+ cell phones

% with 2 cell phones
% with 1 cell phone

% Dial-up Internet
% Cable Internet

Streaming Audio
% DSL Internet

% Zero Wirline
% Own Laptop

% IM Voice
% Own PC

% IM Text

Banking
Games

Music
Video
SES I -0.07 -0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.13 -0.02 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.11
SES II 0.53 0.59 -0.42 0.48 0.50 0.55 0.45 -0.04 -0.39 0.39 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.36 0.37 0.49
SES III -0.38 -0.36 0.20 -0.26 -0.27 -0.35 -0.29 0.05 0.39 -0.16 -0.11 -0.04 -0.05 -0.13 -0.19 -0.33
% Own PC 1.00 0.90 -0.80 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.19 -0.87 0.71 0.60 0.30 0.46 0.59 0.66 0.90
% Own Laptop 1.00 -0.77 0.74 0.88 0.87 0.88 -0.70 0.69 0.57 0.49 0.51 0.66 0.69 0.85
% with 1 cell phone 1.00 -0.82 -0.93 -0.83 -0.72 -0.12 0.62 -0.74 -0.66 -0.37 -0.59 -0.72 -0.70 -0.79
% with 2 cell phones 1.00 0.91 0.85 0.69 0.35 -0.72 0.69 0.60 0.18 0.45 0.55 0.61 0.81
% with 2+ cell phones 1.00 0.90 0.81 0.22 -0.73 0.76 0.65 0.35 0.56 0.68 0.70 0.86
% Cable Internet 1.00 0.87 -0.69 0.84 0.76 0.47 0.67 0.77 0.81 0.95
% DSL Internet 1.00 0.09 -0.60 0.87 0.80 0.72 0.74 0.83 0.89 0.94
% Dial-up Internet 1.00 -0.21 0.13 0.13 -0.12 0.05 0.15
% Zero Wirline 1.00 -0.37 -0.26 0.07 -0.08 -0.23 -0.31 -0.65
% IM Text 1.00 0.96 0.75 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.92
% IM Voice 1.00 0.76 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.85
% Internet Video 1.00 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.60
% Internet Games 1.00 0.96 0.93 0.75
% Internet Music 1.00 0.97 0.84
% Internet Streaming Audio 1.00 0.90
% Internet Banking 1.00
% Internet Play Game Alone
% Internet Play Game Multi-player
% Internet Send Picture
% Internet Send Video
% Internet Email
% Internet Shop
% Internet Publish to Comm.
% Internet TV
% Internet Streaming Video
% Internet Yellow Pages
% Latino
% NH White
% NH African American
% NH Native Americans
% NH Asian
% NH Pacific Islander

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 76
 Methodology and Findings

Table 10. Correlations—CONTINUED

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

% Non-Hispanic African American

% Non-Hispanic Native American

% Internet Use

% Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander

Play Game Multi-player

% Non-Hispanic White

% Non-Hispanic Asian
Publish to Community
Play Game Alone

Streaming Video

Yellow Pages
Send Picture

Send Video

Internet TV

% Latino
Email

Shop
SES I 0.18 0.22 0.12 0.17 0.08 0.07 0.18 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.05 -0.04 0.08
SES II 0.36 0.18 0.49 0.36 0.51 0.52 0.23 0.30 0.40 0.48 -0.50 0.43 -0.20 -0.12 0.23 -0.13
SES III -0.21 -0.03 -0.30 -0.24 -0.33 -0.35 -0.08 -0.11 -0.23 -0.30 0.62 -0.51 -0.03 -0.04 -0.09 -0.06
% Own PC 0.80 0.50 0.90 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.42 0.50 0.71 0.88 -0.53 0.47 -0.23 -0.14 0.22 0.00
% Own Laptop 0.66 0.44 0.82 0.73 0.89 0.91 0.45 0.62 0.75 0.84 -0.52 0.38 -0.17 -0.18 0.33
% with 1 cell phone -0.80 -0.70 -0.83 -0.73 -0.80 -0.81 -0.50 -0.57 -0.69 -0.80 0.27 -0.25 0.17 0.14 -0.15
% with 2 cell phones 0.83 0.58 0.87 0.69 0.84 0.84 0.38 0.41 0.62 0.80 -0.42 0.45 -0.24 -0.12 0.06 -0.04
% with 2+ cell phones 0.83 0.64 0.89 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.47 0.56 0.72 0.85 -0.39 0.36 -0.22 -0.16 0.18
% Cable Internet 0.88 0.67 0.94 0.83 0.93 0.94 0.61 0.67 0.83 0.94 -0.47 0.39 -0.19 -0.18 0.24
% DSL Internet 0.82 0.69 0.90 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.72 0.82 0.92 0.94 -0.35 0.21 -0.14 -0.20 0.33 0.08
% Dial-up Internet 0.28 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.05 -0.08 0.14 0.19 -0.17 0.09 -0.21 -0.04
% Zero Wirline -0.57 -0.19 -0.67 -0.47 -0.70 -0.72 -0.05 -0.14 -0.38 -0.61 0.53 -0.52 0.21 0.04 -0.11
% IM Text 0.93 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.88 0.87 0.91 0.89 0.96 0.94 -0.22 0.13 -0.13 -0.17 0.23 0.05
% IM Voice 0.89 0.92 0.84 0.90 0.80 0.78 0.93 0.88 0.92 0.87 -0.13 0.06 -0.10 -0.16 0.18 0.06
% Internet Video 0.51 0.69 0.53 0.73 0.55 0.54 0.86 0.94 0.83 0.64 -0.19 -0.18 0.31 0.11
% Internet Games 0.78 0.91 0.72 0.83 0.68 0.67 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.79 -0.04 -0.06 -0.05 -0.17 0.22 0.06
% Internet Music 0.82 0.90 0.81 0.88 0.78 0.78 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.86 -0.15 0.03 -0.08 -0.18 0.27 0.05
% Internet Streaming Audio 0.86 0.88 0.87 0.92 0.85 0.84 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.92 -0.21 0.09 -0.10 -0.18 0.28 0.08
% Internet Banking 0.92 0.75 0.98 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.75 0.77 0.92 0.99 -0.43 0.34 -0.17 -0.17 0.26 0.04
% Internet Play Game Alone 1.00 0.87 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.76 0.71 0.86 0.93 -0.27 0.25 -0.17 -0.14 0.12
% Internet Play Game Multi-player 1.00 0.76 0.82 0.69 0.67 0.86 0.79 0.83 0.78 0.04 -0.06 -0.09 -0.14 0.11 0.05
% Internet Send Picture 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.97 0.72 0.72 0.89 0.98 -0.43 0.37 -0.19 -0.14 0.20
% Internet Send Video 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.86 0.93 0.93 -0.27 0.19 -0.14 -0.16 0.23 0.07
% Internet Email 1.00 0.99 0.68 0.72 0.88 0.97 -0.45 0.36 -0.20 -0.17 0.25
% Internet Shop 1.00 0.66 0.71 0.88 0.97 -0.48 0.38 -0.20 -0.16 0.26
% Internet Publish to Comm. 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.78 -0.07 -0.04 -0.03 -0.15 0.22 0.08
% Internet TV 1.00 0.93 0.79 -0.10 -0.04 -0.05 -0.19 0.30 0.09
% Internet Streaming Video 1.00 0.94 -0.28 0.14 -0.11 -0.18 0.30 0.07
% Internet Yellow Pages 1.00 -0.39 0.29 -0.16 -0.17 0.26 0.05
% Latino 1.00 -0.79 0.04 -0.05 -0.27
% NH White 1.00 -0.38 0.07 -0.25 -0.18
% NH African American 1.00 -0.04 -0.06 0.20
% NH Native Americans 1.00 -0.12
% NH Asian 1.00 0.13
% NH Pacific Islander 1.00

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 77
 Methodology and Findings

this confirms that having a single or multiple cell
phones is an important predictor of socioeconomic
status. In fact, as Table 10 illustrates, while having
one cell phone is negatively correlated with all
other technology access indicators, it is positively
correlated with percentage of Latino, Non-
Hispanic African American, and Non-Hispanic
Native American populations.
Since owning a desktop or a laptop is the first
step toward using the Internet, it is important to
note that there are some differences between the
two. As the number of households with laptops
increases in an area, the level of advanced Internet
usage increases. This is particularly visible in the
higher correlation values for video downloading
and watching Internet TV. While this may be
driven by the underlying socioeconomic factors
variables can be used to create a typology (or
grouping) of Internet usage (by census tract). To
illustrate this, I ran statistical analyses to examine
the structural relationship between these variables.
Readers need to be reminded that since the data
used for this report represent census geography,
the grouping simply suggests how areas can be
grouped, based on how their residents use various
Internet services.
Table 11 represents the results of a factor analysis
on 15 variables. Because this is indeed a variable
reduction technique, we can use the results to
understand how particular variables group together
(through their loading levels on each new complex
Table 11. Interent Usage Typology at Census Tract Level
Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

(laptop owners versus desktop owners), the SPECIALIZED

COMMON HIGH SPEED
difference nonetheless translates to issues of INTERNET USAGE INTERNET USAGE

mobility and higher utility, factors that can be Percent Internet Video — 0.932
Percent Internet Games 0.424 0.879
improved as the price for laptops approaches
Percent Internet Music 0.546 0.812
those of desktops. Percent Internet Streaming Audio 0.633 0.763
In terms of connectivity, Table 10 makes it clear Percent Internet Banking 0.893 0.434
Percent Internet Play Game Alone 0.847 0.441
that in areas where a large number of households
Percent Internet Play Game Multi-player 0.520 0.731
employ dial-up services to access the Internet, Percent Internet Send Picture 0.921 0.376
usage of various Internet services remains minimal. Percent Internet Send Video 0.744 0.608
Percent Internet Email 0.921 0.348
At such low speeds, it would be nearly impossible
Percent Internet Shop 0.927 0.335
to engage in sophisticated usage of important online Percent Internet Publish to Community 0.418 0.867
functions, such as shopping and banking. Percent Internet TV 0.427 0.872
Perecnt Internet Streaming Video 0.676 0.716
Internally, variables defining various types of
Percent Internet Yellow Pages 0.869 0.480
Internet usage are highly correlated. This suggests Initial Eigenvalue 12.8 1.4
that Internet users who use cable or DSL are more Percent of Variance 85.3 9.3
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings 7.4 6.8
likely to consume all that the Internet can provide.
Percent of Variance 49.2 45.3
The only exceptions are those who rely on a
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
large bandwidth, such as downloading videos or
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
watching Internet TV. As such, selected technology Rotation converged in 3 iterations

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 78

variable or index). The result of this analysis suggests
that the 15 variables could help construct two indexes,
collectively explaining close to 94.5% of the variance in
the original data. These variable groupings reflect two
types of Internet usage: common applications (such as
e-mailing, banking, shopping, sending pictures and
videos, and playing games alone) and specialized
usage that requires high-speed connection (Internet
videos, games, music, streaming audio, multiplayer
games, visiting and publishing to community, Internet
TV, and streaming video). Since the unit of analysis is
a census tract, this grouping pattern suggests that not
only is there a distinct geography of Internet usage but
also this pattern is driven by socioeconomic status of
an area, which affects its prevalent mode of connection
to the Internet, the degree of need for particular
application, and cost associated with more advanced
applications (and technologies).
Based on initial findings, I ran a second factor
analysis, including all the pertinent technology
variables, attempting to create a composite technology
index that can provide an overview of the geography
of access to technology the state. Table 12 provides the
results of this analysis, highlighting the degree to which
a typology of access to technology can be created. The
three extracted composite indexes collectively explain
96.6% of the variance in the 40 variables in this study.3
The three indexes provide an interesting grouping
of census tracts by technology indicators. The first
index includes the largest number of technology
variables and, as such, should be treated as the
technology index for mapping and further analysis.
It portrays a high loading pattern by all variables
other than 11. These 11 variables have higher
loading values on Indexes II and III, suggesting
a clear division between neighborhoods and their
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
pattern of access to technology. For example,
the second index includes having access to one
cell phone, one desktop, cable connection to the
Internet, and zero or one wireline. This confirms
the earlier findings regarding the number of
available cell phones per household. Given
that having only one cell phone per household
produces the highest loading value on the second
index and is missing from the first index (having
achieved a loading value below 0.3), we can state
with certainty that this variable is an important
identifier for the level of access to technology.
In other words, in neighborhoods where a large
number of households have only one cell phone,
access to other technologies seems to score low.
Note that all the Internet usage variables scored
lower on the second index than on the other two.
The third index provides further evidence
to what was discussed regarding the typology
of use (see Table 11). Once again, this statistical
analysis illustrates how high-end uses tend to
group together, creating an index that not only
distinguishes itself from the second index but also
from the first. In other words, there is a distinct
grouping of census tracts that differentiates
neighborhoods with users of instant messaging
with voice, downloading video content,
downloading/purchasing games, downloading/
purchasing music, listening to streaming audio,
visiting/publishing to online community, and
watching Internet TV live from others.
Figures 57 through 57b illustrate the geographic
structure of these three indexes. The first index, which
appears in Figure 57, helps identify areas where a
significant number of residents have access to a host
of technologies and Internet usage. Areas with higher
79
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 57. 2007 Use of Various Information and Communication Technologies

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 80
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 57a. 2007 Technology Index II Reliance on Single Cell Phone per Households & with Minimal Usage of other Technologies

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 81
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 57b. 2007 Technology Index III High End Users of the Internet

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 82
 Methodology and Findings

Table 12. Technology Indexes

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

Tech. Index I Tech. Index II Tech. Index III

HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 1 — 0.94 —

HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 2 0.76 0.54 0.31
HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 2+ 0.82 0.44 0.36
HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 3 0.81 0.31 0.43
HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 3+ 0.85 — 0.42
HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 4 0.88 — 0.39
HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 4+ 0.88 — 0.38
HAS CELL PHONE - NUM: 5+ 0.82 — 0.35
HAS DESKTOP - HOME USE 0.58 0.75 0.30
HAS DESKTOP - HOME USE - NUM: 1 0.39 0.87 0.30
HAS DESKTOP - HOME USE - NUM: 2+ 0.81 0.51 —
HAS DESKTOP - HOME USE - NUM: 4+ 0.86 0.31 0.31
HAS INTERNET AT HOME: DIALUP 0.78 0.43 0.43
HAS INTERNET AT HOME: DSL 0.72 0.46 0.50
HAS INTERNET AT HOME: CABLE 0.53 0.77 —
OWN LAPTOP/NOTEBOOK PC 0.80 0.36 0.41
HAS PC - LAPTOP - NUM: 1 0.81 0.42 0.37
HAS PC - LAPTOP - NUM: 2 0.87 — 0.35
HAS PC - LAPTOP - NUM: 3+ 0.93 — —
HAS WIRELINE - NUMBER: 0 — 0.76 0.52
HAS WIRELINE - NUMBER: 1 0.52 0.80 —
HAS WIRELINE - NUMBER: 2 0.82 0.45 —
HAS WIRELINE - NUMBER: 3+ 0.88 0.33 —
INTERNET USE: CHAT/INSTANT MESSAGING WITH TEXT 0.65 0.51 0.56
INTERNET USE: CHAT/INSTANT MESSAGING WITH VOICE 0.60 0.52 0.60
INTERNET USE: DOWNLOAD VIDEO CONTENT 0.48 0.39 0.77
INTERNET USE: DOWNLOAD/PURCHASE GAMES 0.58 0.47 0.67
INTERNET USE: DOWNLOAD/PURCHASE MUSIC 0.64 0.36 0.67
INTERNET USE: LISTEN TO STREAMING AUDIO 0.64 0.42 0.64
INTERNET USE: ONLINE BANKING 0.73 0.47 0.48
INTERNET USE: PLAY GAMES ALONE 0.67 0.56 0.46
INTERNET USE: PLAY MULTI-PLAYER GAMES 0.61 0.51 0.58
INTERNET USE: SEND PICTURES 0.74 0.48 0.46
INTERNET USE: SEND VIDEO EMAIL 0.67 0.47 0.56
INTERNET USE: SEND/RECEIVE EMAIL 0.71 0.55 0.43
INTERNET USE: SHOP 0.76 0.47 0.44
INTERNET USE: VISIT/PUBLISH TO ONLINE COMMUNITY 0.52 0.47 0.71
INTERNET USE: WATCH INTERNET TV 0.58 0.41 0.70
INTERNET USE: WATCH STREAMING VIDEO 0.66 0.42 0.62
INTERNET USE: YELLOW PAGES 0.72 0.46 0.50
Initial Eigenvalue 34.9 2.7 1.0
Percent of Variance 82.3 6.7 2.6 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings 20.0 9.9 8.7 Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Percent of Variance 50.1 24.7 21.8 Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 83

scores on this index typically have higher socioeconomic
status, but they are not exclusively urban. In fact, a
number of census tracts in rural and less populated areas
of California scored relatively high on this score. The
second and third technology indexes more decisively
identify the geographic divide between high-end users
and those with only entry-level access to basic ICTs.
While Figure 57a identifies mostly rural areas with
high scores on the second technology index (associated
with reliance on a single cell phone per household and
minimal usage of other technologies), the third index
(Figure 57b) identifies mostly areas that house high-end
users of the Internet (suggesting better connectivity and
higher socioeconomic status). In Southern California,
portions of Ontario (an unincorporated area of San
Bernardino) south of Ontario and portions of Chino
score very high on this score. This is also true for two
small urban corridors: one extends from Hollywood
through West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and along
Wilshire Blvd. to UCLA and Santa Monica and the
other, along the 101 freeway corridor from Burbank
to Sherman Oaks. Other pockets of high scores also
appear in a number of other cities in Los Angeles,
Orange, San Diego, Ventura, and Riverside counties. In
the Bay Area, few census tracts in the cities of Fremont,
San Francisco, and San Jose score high on this index.
As Figure 57b illustrates, very few tracts achieved a
high score on this index, clearly distinguishing various
concentrations of high-end users.
From a statistical perspective, while the first
technology index, which includes access to a significant
majority of ICTs, is highly correlated (i.e., Pearson
correlation=0.71, significant at the 0.01 level, 2-tailed)
with the second socioeconomic status index (i.e., areas
with a large number of educated households with
professional occupations), the second technology index,
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
which depicts areas with households having access
to one cell phone and a minimal number of wirelines,
correlated highly (i.e., Pearson correlation=0.61,
significant at the 0.01 level, 2-tailed) with the first
socioeconomic index, which represented areas where
households with lower education, sales, service, and
blue-collar occupations can be found.
Though factor analysis produces indexes that are
created through regression-like models, the results
are not easily understood by people unfamiliar with
multivariate statistics and interpretation their results.
To create a more understandable index, I followed the
methodology that was developed during our last study
of Los Angeles. For this, I created a ranking of 1 to 3 for
each tract on each of the 26 technology variables.4,5 This
meant that if a tract scored uniformly low across
all variables, it could only achieve a value of 26
on the new index. If it achieved the highest score
on all variables, a census tract would receive an
index value of 78. The result for all census tracts in
California revealed that the lowest achieved score
is 29 and the highest is 75. These values represent
the Cumulative Technology Index for the State.
Figure 58 illustrates the geographic distribution
of this index, illustrating that areas with the
highest scores are more likely to be located closer
to the coastal regions in the Bay Area, extending
from Contra Costa to Santa Clara and Marin to
San Mateo counties, and in Southern California,
extending from Ventura to San Diego, including
the southwestern region of San Bernardino and
the western section of Riverside counties. With a
mean score of 52 and a standard deviation of 11
for the state, it is expected that about two thirds of
all census tracts achieved a score that ranges from
41 to 63.6 However, 979 census tracts had values
84
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 58. 2007 Cumulative Index Access to Information and Communication Technologies

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 85
 Methodology and Findings

exceeding 63 (or one standard deviation above
the mean), 404 of which were located in the three
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Clara
(see Table 13). Collectively, the 979 tracts had a
population of close to 6 million, which accounts for
16.2% of the total population in the state. Nearly
half of the residents of these tracts were Non-
Hispanic White, while 5.3% were Non-Hispanic
African American, 18.4% were Non-Hispanic Asian
American, and 22.6% were Latino. Comparing
these values with the overall racial and ethnic
structure of the state (see Table 1) suggests that the
population residing in tracts with the highest levels
of access to technology is disproportionately Non-
Hispanic White and Asian.
While only 26 counties appear on the list of

Table 13. Areas with High Scores on Access to Technology Index

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

NO. OF NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC 2007 NON-HISPANIC 2007
CENSUS 2007 WHITE AFRICAN AMER. NATIVE AMER. ASIAN PAC. ISLNDR NON-HISPANIC 2 RACES LATINO
COUNTY TRACTS POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION OTHER OR MORE POPULATION

Alameda 70 400,670 176,795 13,841 1,316 131,216 1,536 1,136 18,325 56,505
Contra Costa 32 274,740 140,262 24,018 919 43,522 1,054 697 12,725 51,543
El Dorado 2 10,856 8,733 168 23 642 25 23 329 913
Fresno 10 62,492 40,284 1,840 258 7,116 145 192 1,965 10,692
Imperial 1 3,443 1,139 19 27 218 -— 7 36 1,997
Kern 12 75,856 47,020 3,233 593 4,639 122 92 1,919 18,238
Los Angeles 155 791,767 441,650 39,900 2,151 116,378 1,525 2,198 20,893 167,072
Merced 2 17,122 6,701 935 81 433 80 67 495 8,330
Monterey 10 48,706 13,920 1,162 186 5,753 146 67 1,000 26,472
Orange 101 562,006 357,754 8,559 1,300 101,670 1,043 1,073 20,033 70,574
Placer 10 78,047 61,202 1,266 384 6,230 150 151 2,709 5,955
Riverside 66 472,100 218,025 47,892 2,009 38,756 1,793 888 15,608 147,129
Sacramento 35 248,505 124,800 23,355 1,142 45,161 1,055 711 13,899 38,382
San Benito 2 20,864 9,926 290 100 918 54 38 405 9,133
San Bernardino 46 532,400 182,603 53,277 1,660 52,230 1,250 930 14,957 225,493
San Diego 90 552,151 303,579 21,122 1,451 102,769 1,947 1,082 20,014 100,187
San Francisco 69 269,115 171,492 10,247 626 43,881 505 1,030 7,724 33,610
San Joaquin 12 129,769 55,925 11,842 765 18,055 827 432 6,913 35,010
San Mateo 21 88,223 45,566 1,874 214 25,082 555 273 3,250 11,409
Santa Barbara 6 31,122 17,946 408 98 2,764 53 57 1,083 8,713
Santa Clara 148 803,165 277,532 21,754 1,941 296,543 3,126 1,794 27,641 172,834
Solano 21 131,746 50,305 20,364 516 27,718 895 336 7,519 24,093
Sonoma 3 23,981 17,851 340 114 1,759 87 36 846 2,948
Stanislaus 4 32,929 17,218 1,196 146 3,571 172 155 1,517 8,954
Ventura 48 319,112 164,822 5,471 1,177 23,728 704 501 6,675 116,034
Yolo 3 13,328 5,933 197 48 2,061 107 25 507 4,450
Total 979 5,994,215 2,958,983 314,570 19,245 1,102,813 18,956 13,991 208,987 1,356,670
Percent of Total 100.00 100.00 49.36 5.25 0.32 18.40 0.32 0.23 3.49 22.63

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 86
 Methodology and Findings

Table 14. Areas with Low Scores on Access to Technology Index

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

NO. OF NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC 2007 NON-HISPANIC 2007
CENSUS 2007 WHITE AFRICAN AMER. NATIVE AMER. ASIAN PAC. ISLNDR. NON-HISPANIC 2 RACES LATINO
COUNTY TRACTS POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION OTHER OR MORE POPULATION

Alameda 35 111,562 9,143 47,619 410 15,239 659 253 4,172 34,067
Amador 5 23,926 21,394 78 210 251 10 22 452 1,509
Butte 29 141,761 107,602 2,254 2,384 6,693 252 257 5,664 16,655
Calaveras 4 24,837 21,125 261 367 293 21 21 657 2,092
Colusa 2 5,715 3,484 100 109 52 13 11 96 1,850
Contra Costa 9 50,169 15,119 10,722 191 3,384 273 126 1,493 18,861
Del Norte 5 22,215 16,646 120 1,364 777 12 38 869 2,389
El Dorado 4 16,849 13,918 38 233 207 19 16 573 1,845
Fresno 46 270,370 55,691 22,966 2,331 25,335 362 373 6,038 157,274
Glenn 3 12,128 8,009 141 276 559 10 14 268 2,851
Humboldt 19 95,869 74,486 1,024 5,294 1,822 180 329 4,705 8,029
Imperial 15 79,147 9,708 4,524 1,223 753 54 50 457 62,378
Inyo 5 15,205 10,235 51 1,492 175 8 21 434 2,789
Kern 32 157,242 64,212 10,040 1,841 1,580 194 197 3,432 75,746
Kings 4 25,351 7,311 771 419 412 48 18 447 15,925
Lake 9 48,615 36,584 1,218 1,145 520 66 44 1,338 7,700
Lassen 2 8,571 4,631 1,495 171 40 6 97 131 2,000
Los Angeles 466 2,196,272 144,799 303,562 6,356 172,928 5,162 3,145 30,374 1,529,946
Madera 6 39,807 15,434 535 676 238 113 134 706 21,971
Mariposa 3 16,172 13,665 140 407 163 13 18 439 1,327
Mendocino 13 63,472 45,356 426 2,375 563 110 120 1,768 12,754
Merced 10 42,169 10,156 2,133 233 4,058 41 75 903 24,570
Modoc 4 9,682 7,852 73 315 67 7 27 174 1,167
Monterey 2 11,579 3,145 2,228 79 407 81 262 222 5,155
Napa 1 5,179 2,575 21 31 87 2 3 68 2,392
Nevada 7 38,862 34,074 176 279 423 39 83 1,180 2,608
Orange 26 143,833 41,187 1,181 416 8,957 157 85 1,289 90,561
Placer 7 39,651 30,212 297 265 689 72 39 1,034 7,043
Plumas 5 19,617 17,144 179 382 137 15 32 470 1,258
Riverside 89 445,961 223,524 18,179 3,723 10,296 813 483 8,447 180,496
Sacramento 41 192,175 57,432 30,193 1,501 30,497 2,032 507 11,510 58,503
San Bernardino 45 216,185 116,917 13,393 2,083 8,804 585 373 6,824 67,206
San Diego 70 335,710 80,798 20,794 1,962 25,028 1,159 414 8,951 196,604
San Francisco 12 39,482 6,504 9,782 148 18,091 582 99 1,234 3,042
San Joaquin 28 142,559 25,887 14,479 926 21,268 299 230 4,641 74,829
San Luis Obispo 7 38,925 31,195 574 214 1,486 40 50 854 4,512
Santa Barbara 2 14,802 2,316 503 112 322 30 6 258 11,255
Santa Clara 1 328 186 7 — 72 — — 8 55
Santa Cruz 2 14,649 2,201 85 120 326 8 25 163 11,721
Shasta 23 116,648 95,779 1,085 2,891 2,373 148 144 4,566 9,662

CONTINUED

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 87
 Methodology and Findings

Table 14. Areas with Low Scores on Access to Technology Index—CONTINUED

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

NO. OF NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC 2007 NON-HISPANIC 2007
CENSUS 2007 WHITE AFRICAN AMER. NATIVE AMER. ASIAN PAC. ISLNDR. NON-HISPANIC 2 RACES LATINO
COUNTY TRACTS POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION OTHER OR MORE POPULATION

Sierra 1 3,427 3,017 7 46 3 3 2 43 306

Siskiyou 14 46,108 37,737 603 1,444 558 39 43 1,413 4,271
Solano 3 5,235 1,181 1,426 60 904 24 8 264 1,368
Sonoma 2 8,113 6,912 54 49 180 13 15 247 643
Stanislaus 13 60,663 22,513 2,114 558 2,315 209 104 2,032 30,818
Sutter 5 18,550 10,268 402 213 1,031 40 20 496 6,080
Tehama 10 57,427 42,164 414 941 479 38 115 1,401 11,875
Trinity 4 13,958 11,938 60 541 116 16 14 585 688
Tulare 19 94,547 21,599 1,641 1,032 3,416 154 113 1,610 64,982
Tuolumne 8 46,459 37,003 1,899 575 454 73 38 1,142 5,275
Ventura 5 13,316 8,494 156 87 384 7 13 264 3,911
Yolo 7 35,003 16,223 1,401 371 4,343 147 78 1,579 10,861
Yuba 2 11,695 7,739 156 264 973 8 14 559 1,982
Total 1,191 5,707,752 1,714,424 533,780 51,135 380,528 14,466 8,818 128,944 2,875,657
Percent of Total 100.00 100.00 30.04 9.35 0.90 6.67 0.25 0.15 2.26 50.38

census tracts with the high scoring values on the
technology index (see Table 13), the list for census
tracts with low score values includes 53 counties
(see Table 14), missing only Alpine, Marin, Mono,
San Benito, and San Mateo counties. Of these, only
San Benito and San Mateo show up on Table 13.
This suggests that census tracts in these counties
are entirely in the high-scoring category. The
other three counties have census tracts that fall
entirely in the middle range for the Cumulative
Technology Index.
Table 14 illustrates an interesting geography and
demographic structure for low-scoring census tracts.
For example, about 39% of all tracts in this category
(466 of 1,191 census tracts) fall in Los Angeles County,
housing also about 39% of the 5.7 million people who
live in such tracts in the state. Overall, while slightly
over 30% of residents in these tracts are Non-Hispanic
White, over 50% are Latino and 9% are African
American, rates that are disproportionate to the racial
and ethnic structure of the population in the state (see
Table 1). This pattern is more severe at the county level.
For example, in Los Angeles, only about 144,000 of the
residents in the low- scoring tracts were Non-Hispanic
White. This is slightly over 1% of the total population
and about 5% of all Non-Hispanic White residents of
the county. In contrast, these low-scoring tracts house
over 1.5 million Latinos, making up 15% of the county
population and about 32% of its total Latino residents.
Beyond these racial and ethnic dynamics, it is
important to note that many rural census tracts are
also affected by the emerging geography of digital
divide in the state. While northern, central, and eastern
counties are clearly less populated, they nonetheless
score very low on their level of access to technology.
Given the limited resources in the state, it is crucial

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 88
 Methodology and Findings

that we prioritize our intervention policies based on
a hierarchy that includes geographic location and
socioeconomic status. After all, the computed index
of access to technology is significantly (and positively)
correlated with the second socioeconomic index (i.e.,
educated population with professional occupations)
and negatively with the third socioeconomic index
(i.e., lower education and income). Given that these
geographies cover both urban and rural California, the
area/population prioritization needs to take a phased
approach that helps some neighborhoods reach the
middle range quickly (i.e., those near a score of 41) and
invests in low-scoring areas by building the needed
physical infrastructure and human capital to achieve
higher levels of connectivity in the future.
To provide one such example of an area-based
prioritization, I identified two groups of census tracts:
those that are between one and one-and-a-half standard

Table 15. Category I Areas for Possible Policy Intervention

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

NO. OF NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC 2007 NON-HISPANIC 2007
CENSUS 2007 WHITE AFRICAN AMER. NATIVE AMER. ASIAN PAC. ISLNDR. NON-HISPANIC 2 RACES LATINO
COUNTY TRACTS POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION OTHER OR MORE POPULATION

Alameda 4 9,934 1,249 3,928 68 940 68 15 430 3,236

Butte 7 30,128 20,953 872 372 1,956 108 83 1,285 4,499
Fresno 7 42,394 7,018 2,029 334 3,721 80 54 913 28,245
Humboldt 3 12,779 7,476 310 2,675 287 23 52 572 1,384
Imperial 1 2,942 495 12 13 6 — — 21 2,395
Kern 14 73,758 11,865 7,171 573 936 60 60 1,172 51,921
Kings 2 15,075 4,196 592 111 312 32 15 262 9,555
Los Angeles 113 529,427 35,052 62,261 1,432 40,538 1,591 660 8,100 379,793
Madera 2 13,142 1,715 149 115 42 32 13 64 11,012
Merced 4 18,630 1,005 1,004 60 2,972 21 22 346 13,200
Orange 1 2,843 714 38 1 1,723 4 14 143 206
Riverside 11 65,728 12,169 3,466 455 1,254 139 53 1,195 46,997
Sacramento 5 21,490 6,410 2,615 166 4,456 129 76 1,332 6,306
San Bernardino 6 24,067 3,878 4,363 132 475 74 28 511 14,606
San Diego 15 86,018 16,071 8,019 478 4,935 341 85 3,126 52,963
San Francisco 1 5,130 1,771 1,919 10 831 9 17 230 343
San Joaquin 6 34,896 3,400 3,852 136 6,326 95 111 1,281 19,695
San Luis Obispo 1 5,802 4,490 39 17 607 8 6 152 483
Santa Barbara 2 14,802 2,316 503 112 322 30 6 258 11,255
Siskiyou 1 1,401 644 2 8 5 — 3 15 724
Solano 1 193 55 45 — 51 — 4 20 18
Stanislaus 6 28,967 7,982 683 232 970 75 34 875 18,116
Sutter 1 4,116 1,853 86 83 57 3 4 82 1,948
Tulare 9 46,686 7,697 1,091 376 1,836 62 38 669 34,917
Ventura 1 2,426 1,539 37 28 117 2 5 107 591
Yolo 3 15,919 7,268 716 151 2,990 45 19 753 3,977
Yuba 1 6,518 3,227 131 161 923 5 2 326 1,743
Total 228 1,115,211 172,508 105,933 8,299 79,588 3,036 1,479 24,240 720,128
Percent of Total 100.00 100.00 15.47 9.50 0.74 7.14 0.27 0.13 2.17 64.57

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 89
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 59. Category I Priority Areas & 2007 Cumulative Technology Index

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 90
 Methodology and Findings

deviation below the mean (i.e., areas where scores are low on access to either cable or DSL for connecting to
close to the middle range and smaller investments the Internet. They also rank low on having PCs and
could bring about the needed transition more swiftly) more than one cell phone per household. In terms of
and areas where the scores are significantly low (i.e., Internet usage, the majority of the 228 census tracts
areas with a score below 35). It is interesting that the rank low on e-mailing, shopping, banking, and other
first category identified 467 tracts in the state (about 48% modes of information gathering and communication.
of the 979 census tracts that were below one standard Given lack of access to high-speed Internet, the low
deviation). A significant majority of these tracts (197 or ranking for these usage categories is understandable. A
42%) is located in Los Angeles County. Among them, reasonable public policy approach to these tracts could
228 report median household incomes below $30,000, include the following:
suggesting that they may need a more immediate
policy intervention. As Table 15 illustrates, 27 or half of Table 16. Patterns of Access to Technology in Category I Areas
all counties in California show up on this list, including (228 tracts); Values represent the number of census tracts in each
ranking category
a mixture of rural and urban areas (also see Figure 59, Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres
which identifies these tracts visually). They dot counties RANKING ON VARIOUS TECHNOLOGY SCORES
in Southern California and Imperial Valley and a chain
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
of them appears from central to northern California,
Own PC 218 10 —
highlighting some of the more rural areas of the state, Own Laptop 191 37 —
which may require more immediate attention. 1 cell phone — 142 86
2 cell phones 161 67 —
Collectively, these 228 tracts house 1.1 million
2+ cell phones 117 111 —
individuals, who are largely Latino (64.6%) and Non- Cable Internet 217 11 —
Hispanic African American (9.5%). However, in counties DSL Internet 218 10 —
Dial Up Internet 32 186 10
such as Butte, Humboldt, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura,
Zero Wirleine — 23 205
more than half of the resident population of these tracts IM Text 95 133 —
is Non-Hispanic White. Counties where Latinos make IM Voice 34 194 —
Interent Video 14 214 —
up more than half of the population in the identified
Internet Games 4 224 —
tracts include Fresno, Imperial, Kern, King, Los Angeles, Internet Music 13 215 —
Madera, Merced, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Interent Steaming Audio 67 161 —
Interen Banking 222 6 —
San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, and
Interent Play Game Alone 188 40 —
Tulare. Among these, Los Angeles, San Diego, Kern, Internet Plaly Game Multi-player 18 210 —
Riverside, Tulare, and Fresno house the largest number Internet Send Picture 216 12 —
Internet Send Video 216 12 —
of Latinos (i.e., close to 83% of the Latinos in the selected
Internet Email 228 — —
228 census tracts, or 600,000, live in these six counties). Interent Shopping 228 — —
The aggregate ranking pattern on the 26 technology Internet Visit/Publish to Online Community 18 210 —
Interent TV 25 203 —
variables for these 228 tracts are shown in Table 16. It
Internet Streaming Audio 140 88 —
is clear from this table that these areas collectively rank Internet Yellow Pages 227 1 —

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 91

a) making sure that they do have the adequate
infrastructural backbone to provide high-speed
connectivity to the Internet,
b) assuring that access to this service is not hindered
by cost, and
c) providing educational resources regarding the use
and benefits of the Internet.
Additionally, it is crucial that steps are taken to
expand subscription and use of cell phones in these
tracts. As this study has shown, the number of cell
phones per household is an important factor in the
emerging patterns of digital divide. Increasing the level
of access to cell phones and smart phones (i.e., more
than one per household) could help us expand the
level of access to the Internet in a more immediate (and
perhaps) less costly manner. Through a public-private
partnership, we could bring about less costly services
and offer more education about how these devices can
play the dual role of providing personal communication
and access to digital information.
The second category, which identifies the least
connected census tracts, includes both rural and urban
areas; however, as Figure 60 suggests, a larger number
of these tracts are located in Northern California. The 341
census tracts in this category house 1.5 million people,
56.4% of whom are Latino; 12.3%, Non-Hispanic African
American; and another 17.9%, Non-Hispanic White
(see Table 17). It is interesting that this category has the
highest representation of African Americans, compared
with all other groupings previously discussed. This
may suggest that while Latino neighborhoods remain
among the most technologically disconnected in the
state, African American neighborhoods are equally and,
in some cases, more drastically affected by the same
phenomenon. However, since the African American
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
population is significantly smaller and geographically
concentrated (in fewer tracts) than that of Latinos, its
experience with digital divide may not be as readily
obvious (especially in statewide and large regional
analyses). As Table 17 illustrates, 47% of the population
of Alameda County, who live in census tracts that fall
in the second category (i.e., the lowest level of access
to almost all forms of ICTs), are Non-Hispanic African
American. Similarly, 24% of the selected census tracts
in Contra Costa County, 11% of Fresno, 24% of Lassen,
15% of Los Angeles, 16% of Sacramento, 16% of San
Francisco, 10% of San Joaquin, and 37% of Solano are
Non-Hispanic African American. Hence, focusing
on these priority areas would not only improve our
digital divide patterns but also take major steps toward
improving the status of access in African American and
Latino neighborhoods in the state.
Not surprisingly, almost all of the 341 census tracts
in this category scored low on each of the 26 technology
variables. In fact, these areas were selected based on the
two criteria of having a score of 35 or lower and having
a median household income of less than $30,000. This
means that the cumulative technology index for these
tracts could range from a low of 29 to a high of 35 (note
that to receive a score of 35, a tract must score at least a
2 in 9 categories – based on 26 variables). An assessment
of scores for various variables reveals that this was
achieved by scoring higher than the lower values
on a small number of indicators, including having
access to one cell phone and having dial-up services
for connecting to the Internet. Overall, these census
tracts need a significant infrastructural and human/
social capital development. This can be best achieved,
perhaps, by a mixture of educational and infrastructural
policies. While the latter would focus on improving
access to ICTs, especially access to the broadband, the
92
 Methodology and Findings

Table 17. Category II Areas for Possible Policy Intervention

Source: Claritas Inc., Computations by A. Modarres

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

NO. OF NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC 2007 NON-HISPANIC 2007
CENSUS 2007 WHITE AFRICAN AMER. NATIVE AMER. ASIAN PAC. ISLNDR. NON-HISPANIC 2 RACES LATINO
COUNTY TRACTS POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION OTHER OR MORE POPULATION

Alameda 9 20,513 1,419 9,634 61 5,954 45 74 755 2,571

Butte 4 20,725 12,430 774 586 2,408 30 23 1,106 3,368
Contra Costa 2 6,759 1,130 1,628 13 432 18 23 173 3,342
Del Norte 1 3,849 2,779 20 177 215 2 8 197 451
Fresno 24 129,136 16,821 14,531 1,056 16,379 140 115 3,121 76,973
Humboldt 4 20,914 15,641 295 1,002 507 48 124 1,436 1,861
Imperial 7 33,900 3,869 586 1,041 413 48 21 284 27,638
Inyo 1 2,524 1,493 — 122 23 3 5 43 835
Kern 9 50,889 29,706 2,387 804 318 58 80 1,383 16,153
Lake 3 20,830 15,438 887 466 253 42 26 710 3,008
Lassen 1 5,679 2,293 1,430 66 31 4 95 31 1,729
Los Angeles 173 810,743 42,471 122,256 2,550 76,192 1,403 1,165 10,611 554,095
Mendocino 3 16,496 10,522 105 499 158 19 22 455 4,716
Merced 1 4,008 1,552 264 29 200 2 37 62 1,862
Modoc 1 3,538 2,881 8 109 37 4 15 72 412
Monterey 1 2,547 399 79 12 93 6 — 51 1,907
Orange 1 3,723 3,412 25 6 116 3 — 20 141
Riverside 19 68,114 34,778 2,983 614 1,596 125 40 1,440 26,538
Sacramento 14 67,166 15,668 10,904 598 11,103 759 141 3,931 24,062
San Bernardino 9 23,809 5,870 2,345 448 752 65 38 598 13,693
San Diego 20 92,161 7,101 5,632 251 11,103 289 97 2,017 65,671
San Francisco 8 29,050 4,470 4,758 132 16,306 535 66 872 1,911
San Joaquin 11 55,072 7,320 5,599 344 9,402 88 54 1,675 30,590
San Luis Obispo 1 3,476 2,567 67 28 177 3 16 94 524
Shasta 6 24,746 19,179 414 630 1,185 56 56 1,158 2,068
Siskiyou 3 8,491 6,629 73 689 117 5 — 337 641
Solano 1 3,275 595 1,218 23 483 16 — 167 773
Stanislaus 1 2,539 1,366 156 47 21 7 8 74 860
Sutter 1 5,072 3,024 171 59 83 26 2 122 1,585
Trinity 2 3,836 3,164 2 247 23 2 11 196 191
Total 341 1,543,580 275,987 189,231 12,709 156,080 3,851 2,362 33,191 870,169
Percent of Total 100.00 100.00 17.88 12.26 0.82 10.11 0.25 0.15 2.15 56.37

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 93
 Methodology and Findings

Figure 60. Category II Priority Areas & 2007 Cumulative Technology Index

DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA 94

former would help enable the population to utilize
these services to expand their social and economic
opportunities. This would mean that in addition to
the private-public partnership for making resources
available, nonprofit and grass-root groups would need
to be included for the full diffusion of the technology.
This would also provide the needed education and
community development efforts to build the social
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Methodology and Findings
capital of these neighborhoods as their physical and
economic structures are enhanced. In the end, to
improve the access to technology in the most severely
disconnected places, it will take more than making a
few technologies available. We need to prepare and
cultivate the conditions that make technology relevant
to the life of residents and sustain their access to these
tools and services.
95

This study focused on an in-depth analysis of
access to information and communication technologies
(ICTs) in California. Using census tract data from
2007, we were able to provide a detailed visual and
statistical assessment of the nature of digital divide
in the state. This allowed us to create statewide and
county-level maps and analyses that identified the
patterns of inequity by social, economic, racial, ethnic,
and geographic indictors. While the main body of the
report displayed maps at the state level, we prepared an
Appendix that contains a set of 35 maps for each county
in the state. In all, over 2,000 maps have been created to
provide readers with a visual tool to assess the spatial
structure of access to ICTs in the state.7
Our findings illustrate the degree to which
Latinos and Non-Hispanic African Americans
remain isolated from advancements in the use
of ICTs and the information and services they
offer. In the case of Latinos, this takes both a
rural and an urban dimension, suggesting that
as a group, they face many obstacles in accessing
technology, regardless of where they live. It was
also illustrated that, within an urban context,
African Americans in particular locations, such
as Alameda and Los Angeles, remain equally and,
in some cases, more pronouncedly isolated from
what the information technology can offer. The
racial/ethnic dimension of the digital divide is an
important concern, especially when we consider
the degree to which this factor has correlated with
socioeconomic status. As indicated in this report,
while less homogenous places are not necessarily
always low-income minority neighborhoods,
many African American and Latino majority areas
experience lower-socioeconomic status. This was
clearly illustrated when we discussed the concept
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Concluding Remarks 3
of diversity (i.e., entropy index). The lingering
question of race/ethnicity and its geography
becomes clearly important as we consider the
issue of digital divide. For a state that has attracted
many immigrants and minorities over the last
few decades, allowing it to become one of the
most diverse places in the world, the paradox of
segregating in the midst of diversity is an ongoing
challenge. In the case of digital divide, then, it
should not come as a surprise that the emergent
spatial patterns are strongly influenced by the
geography of race and ethnicity. In fact, what is
ironic about the state of digital divide in California
is the degree to which diversity status in a census
tract is related to the observed level of access to
technology. As discussed earlier, an entropy or
diversity index allows us to measure the degree
to which various racial and ethnic groups cohabit
in an area. The larger the value of this index,
the higher the level of diversity would be. To
be sure, this index was shown to be negatively
correlated with Latino and Non-Hispanic White
populations and positively with Non-Hispanic
Asian and African American populations. This
meant that census tracts with a high-diversity
index were more likely to house a large number of
the latter groups and less of the former. With that
information in mind, it was surprising to discover
that our cumulative index of access to technology
was positively correlated with the diversity index!
In other words, the higher the diversity level, the
more likely an area was to receive a high score for
access to various technologies. Interpreting this in
a positive manner, it means that in areas with a
higher socioeconomic status, in which a mixture
of racial and ethnic groups, particularly Asian
96

Americans and African Americans, live together,
access to technology is more prevalent. Interpreting
it negatively, less diverse places, where low-
income Latinos are more likely to reside, are more
likely to experience low levels of access to ICTs.
This means that the path to digital equity is not
that different from the path to social justice. Space
has become the container of our social, cultural,
and economic relationships, encapsulating our
structural differences and inequities.
To ameliorate these sociospatial injustices, we
need to accept that “place” matters, places are
marred by the nature of our past and present
relationships and sociopolitical dynamics, and
places reproduce these conditions due to years
of disinvestment and neglect. From a policy
perspective, it means that to improve the state
of digital divide, we need to understand its
social, cultural, economic, and demographic
underpinnings; and, we need to construct our
solutions in a systematic manner that dovetails
social justice efforts, economic development plans,
educational reforms, and all other progressive
social policies. Digital divide does not occur
in a vacuum, unaffected by social processes
or a social context. In fact, it would be a great
mistake to assume that digital divide is merely a
technological problem. The geography of digital
divide, as presented by this research, suggests that
to produce sustainable solutions for the existing
patterns of inequitable conditions, we must
deal directly with the sociospatial contexts that
produce them. Without changing these contexts, a
lasting change cannot occur.
For this reason, and based on the findings of this
research, we offered a particular methodology and
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Concluding Remarks
a set of recommendations for to dealing with the
problem of digital divide in the state. In summary,
these are as follows:
I. Form public-private partnerships to assess
the actual patterns of access to technology, using
subscription and technology application data.
II. Identify and prioritize areas for short-term and
long-term policy interventions.
A. For this study, we identified two groups of
census tracts:
1) One group houses a population, whose
access to ICTs is only slightly below the
state average (see Figure 59). For these tracts,
we recommend the following strategies:
– Address infrastructural inequities to
assure high-speed connectivity
– Ensure that access is not hindered
by cost
– Provide educational resources
regarding the use and benefits of
the Internet
– Expand subscription and use of cell
(through a public-private partnership
that brings about less costly services
and wider geographic coverage)
2) The second group of tracts housed a
population with some of the lowest levels of
access to the ICTs. For these tracts, we
recommend strategies that focus on expanding
the existing physical infrastructure, access to
services, and enhancing the social capital of
97

the affected communities. This means that in
addition to the four suggested strategies for the
first group, assistance of nonprofit and grass-
root groups has to be sought, in order to create a
wider diffusion of available technologies and to
offer the needed education to improve their use.
We believe that a place-based approach with an
eye on social, cultural, economic, racial, and ethnic
indicators can provide the best and most measurable
results in overcoming the current patterns of digital
divide. For that to occur, areas with minimal
connection need to receive a boost in their digital
infrastructure, while residents are provided with
economically feasible services. However, to improve
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Concluding Remarks
the level of access and usage in the most severely
disconnected places, the strategy needs to move
beyond simply making broadband and various ICTs
available. We need to prepare, improve, and cultivate
the conditions that make technological products and
services relevant to the life of those who have been left
behind in every phase of progress and development.
For that reason, we believe that digital equity needs
to be made a logical and articulated component of
community and economic development efforts in the
least connected places. It is through the convergence
of these policy arenas that we can create the conditions
that will lead to an improved quality of life for all
residents, enriched with sustainable use of ICTs and
the benefits they can provide.
98

1 This study was published in 2006 and can be found at:
http://www.patbrowninstitute.org/publications/
documents/CTF_Report.pdf
2 Table 10, which appears across three pages,
provides correlation values between technology
variables, socioeconomic indexes, and racial and
ethnic variables. To improve the readability of
the results, the variables that appear in columns
have been grouped so that content indicators and
race and ethnicity variables appear together on
a single page. Furthermore, since variables are
duplicated in the table (in a diagonal manner),
it is unnecessary to show the entire table. In the
triangular upper half, where correlation values
appear, blank cells contained values that were not
statistically significant and, hence, were removed
from the table.
3 Note that for the purpose of this analysis, a larger
number of variables was used. These additional
variables provide more frequency information for
access to particular technologies (e.g., desktops,
laptops, and cell phones).
DECEMBER 2008 • IN SEARCH OF DIGITAL EQUITY: ASSESSING THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL DIVIDE IN CALIFORNIA
Notes
4 This excludes three cell phone variables: having 3+,
4+, and 5+ cell phones. Since there is a variable for
households with 2+ phones, these data are already
captured by others. By excluding these variables,
we are making sure that cell phone ownership is
not having an undue influence on the outcome of
our index calculation.
5 Each census tract received a value of three for being
one standard deviation above the mean, a two
for being within one standard deviation from the
mean, and one for being more than one standard
deviation below the mean. In cases where being
one standard deviation above the mean meant
that a census tract was worse off (i.e., number of
households with dial-up Internet or zero wirelines),
the order was reversed.
6 Actually, 4,856 census tracts (or 68.9% of all tracts)
were in this range.
7 Due to its size, the Appendix is made available as a
supplemental CD/file.
99