Broadband access and digital skills

Before making investments in this strategy, city and county leaders should ensure it addresses local needs.

The Urban Institute and Mathematica have developed indicator frameworks to help local leaders assess conditions related to upward mobility, identify barriers, and guide investments to address these challenges. These indicator frameworks can serve as a starting point for self-assessment, not as a comprehensive evaluation, and should be complemented by other forms of local knowledge.

The Urban Institute's Upward Mobility Framework identifies a set of key local conditions that shape communities’ ability to advance upward mobility and racial equity. Local leaders can use the Upward Mobility Framework to better understand the factors that improve upward mobility and prioritize areas of focus. Data reports for cities and counties can be created here.

Several indicators in the Upward Mobility Framework may be improved with investments in broadband access and digital skills. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in these interventions could help, examine the following:

• Social capital: Number of membership associations per 10,000 people and the ratio of residents’ Facebook friends with higher socioeconomic status to their Facebook friends with lower socioeconomic status. These data are available from the Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns and Opportunity Insights’ Social Capital Atlas, respectively.
• Effective public education: Average per-grade change in English Language Arts achievement between the third and eighth grades. These data are available from Stanford University’s Education Data Archive.
• Digital access: Share of households with broadband access in the home. These data are available through Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the FCC’s Internet Access Services Reports and National Broadband Map. Pew Research also provides an internet and home broadband usage analysis.
• Employment opportunities: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living. These data are available from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.

Mathematica's Education-to-Workforce (E-W) Indicator Framework helps local leaders identify the data that matter most in helping students and young adults succeed. Local leaders can use the E-W framework to better understand education and workforce conditions in their communities and to identify strategies that can improve outcomes in these areas.

Several indicators in the E-W Framework may be improved with investments in this strategy. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:

• Digital skills: Percentage of individuals demonstrating proficiency on a performance assessment that measures digital skills required for workforce success, such as the Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments assessment within the Education & Skills Online assessment suite, which can be used by researchers and institutions to gather individual-level results based on OECD Survey of Adult Skills domains.

• Access to technology: Percentage of individuals who have both (1) access to at least one desktop or laptop computer owned by someone in the home and (2) reliable broadband Internet.

• Conducting a needs assessment: Determining the specific needs of the community is essential for successful program design. An initial step is to analyze community data from quantitative and qualitative sources such as demographics, income levels, education, current technology and network access. This ensures designers understand the community’s existing infrastructure and services and their baseline digital competency. This data-driven approach will help to shape a tailored, multi-pronged strategy to bridge identified deficits in connectivity, access to devices and digital skills.

• Evaluating broadband models: Experts emphasize the importance of equipping local decision-makers with a clear understanding of broadband technologies, funding opportunities, implementation models and specific local contexts. This includes assessing the availability of federal, state, or philanthropic subsidies; negotiating with internet service providers for affordable local options; and evaluating the feasibility of municipal broadband or other community-owned models. This also includes gaining and understanding of the relevant local and state regulations. Building this technical, regulatory and financial literacy enables local leaders to make informed, strategic choices that reflect their community’s unique needs and constraints. When jurisdictions understand the landscape of connectivity options, they are better positioned to advocate for expanded access, align funding streams, and design durable, cost-effective solutions.

• Prioritizing affordability and inclusive access: Affordability and inclusion should be central to digital inclusion program design. Jurisdictions can integrate low-cost broadband options by partnering with internet service providers (ISPs) to negotiate discounted rates and expand eligibility for subsidized service. Tiered access models can offer flexibility across income levels, while bundled offerings—combining internet, devices, and support—reduce cost and complexity for users. Inclusive access should be embedded throughout all program components, ensuring outreach and services are culturally responsive, linguistically accessible, and, at minimum, ADA-compliant. Finally, involving community stakeholders in the design phase ensures that solutions are grounded in local realities and reflect the lived experiences of those most affected by the digital divide.

• Planning for the full device lifecycle: Successful digital inclusion strategies go beyond initial device distribution. While getting laptops, tablets, or other hardware into residents’ hands is critical, recent research confirms that many households still face challenges with outdated, broken, or unsupported devices. Local programs should plan for the full lifecycle of device access by incorporating maintenance, repair, and refurbishment into their service models. “Learn-to-earn” programs, which provide devices upon completion of digital skills training, are one effective model that supports both access and engagement. This approach ensures long-term usability, reduces waste and supports ongoing engagement with digital tools. Integrating partnerships with refurbishers, tech support providers, and community-based repair programs strengthens the sustainability and effectiveness of device access efforts.

• Building capacity through layered digital skills training: Digital skills programs are most effective when they offer both immediate, flexible support and structured, long-term learning opportunities. Residents need access to on-demand help, such as digital navigators, helplines, or walk-in assistance, as well as curriculum-based instruction that builds confidence and capabilities over time. This layered approach supports learners at different stages of comfort and experience, meeting people where they are while offering pathways for deeper engagement. Programs should be culturally responsive, linguistically accessible, and integrated into trusted community spaces to foster sustained participation.

• Designing for financial sustainability and long-term impact: A well-designed digital inclusion initiative requires a thorough understanding of both immediate and long-term costs. Experts recommend local leaders begin with a detailed cost analysis that accounts for infrastructure buildout, device procurement, ongoing maintenance, staffing, and support services. This analysis should inform a phased implementation plan that balances readiness, capacity, and resource availability. To ensure long-term viability, jurisdictions must work to diversify funding streams, exploring federal and state sources, as well as philanthropic and private-sector partnerships. Crucially, programs must look beyond initial grant cycles to develop sustainable funding and operating models that can adapt over time. Thoughtful financial planning enables communities to build lasting, resilient digital access strategies that evolve with technological and community needs.

• Designing with the hardest-to-reach user in mind: Centering the hardest-to-reach user helps ensure digital inclusion programs are designed to remove the most significant barriers. This includes considering life constraints—such as transit schedules, caregiving responsibilities, or irregular work hours—when designing digital skills offerings. For broadband affordability efforts, it means minimizing bureaucracy by streamlining enrollment processes for subsidies or low-cost plans. When programs are built with these users in mind, they become more accessible for everyone. Designing for those facing the greatest challenges leads to more inclusive systems that recognize and adapt to the realities of people’s daily lives.

• Ensuring quality alongside affordability: Affordability should not come at the expense of quality. Local programs must work with ISPs to ensure that lower-cost broadband options offer reliable speeds, consistent performance, and sufficient bandwidth to support remote work, education, telehealth, and other essential uses. By leveraging partnerships and setting clear service standards, jurisdictions can ensure that subsidized or discounted plans deliver the full benefits of broadband, not just minimal access.

• Investing in the human infrastructure of broadband: Broadband infrastructure alone is not enough—community infrastructure is equally essential. Residents, community organizations, housing agencies, homelessness service providers, faith institutions, local businesses, and schools play critical roles in reaching those most affected by the digital divide. Many underserved communities have a deep mistrust of government and internet providers, making it challenging for those institutions to reach everyone who could benefit. Trusted local actors offer familiar spaces and relationships, making them effective partners and digital navigators. Many are already working toward broader goals increasingly tied to digital access, positioning them as natural leaders in community-driven implementation.

• Using data to track impact and reduce disparities: Ongoing data collection is critical to understanding whether digital inclusion efforts are achieving their intended outcomes, especially for communities historically left behind. Programs should track granular impact data tied to local goals, such as improvements in education, employment, healthcare access, or digital participation. Measuring both short- and long-term outcomes enables teams to determine if their multi-pronged approach is closing access and opportunity gaps. Importantly, continuous tracking allows for real-time assessment and course correction, ensuring that strategies remain responsive and focused on reducing outcome disparities, not just increasing participation.

Experts highlight the following stakeholder groups as essential for creating a collaborative digital inclusion ecosystem, aligned with greater state and national work, that combines institutional resources, community trust, technical expertise, and direct resident engagement.

• Internal government stakeholders: Departments focused on community services, housing, immigrant advancement, older adults, and public housing should be engaged early, as they represent target populations. These agencies offer critical insights into community needs and existing service delivery infrastructure. Their participation ensures alignment with broader local priorities and helps integrate digital inclusion into existing services.

• Community-based partners: Neighborhood associations, local congregations, community centers, libraries, and organizations serving specific populations (e.g., veterans, new arrivals) bring local trust, cultural competency, and deep community knowledge. Their engagement ensures programs are accessible and relevant. These partners should be compensated for their time and expertise, and empowered as co-designers and implementers rather than just outreach conduits.

• Internet service providers (ISPs): ISPs, including major broadband providers, mobile carriers, and smaller or local providers (which serve many rural areas) are essential partners in expanding infrastructure and access. They can collaborate on outreach and enrollment, share data, and co-design affordable, high-quality service offerings. Early engagement ensures technical feasibility and helps tailor solutions to local needs and funding opportunities.

• Technology and training partners: Device refurbishers, digital skills training organizations, and technology education centers provide essential support across the device access and digital literacy spectrum. These partners can manage distribution, deliver community-based training, and provide ongoing tech support. Their experience enhances the quality and reach of digital inclusion efforts.

• National networks and support organizations: National entities like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, digital equity coalitions, and advocacy groups offer best practices, technical assistance, and policy support. They help local teams stay connected to federal funding opportunities, research, and evolving standards in the digital inclusion field.

• Government representatives (local, state, and federal): Digital inclusion programs benefit from alignment across all levels of government. Federal and state agencies provide funding and regulatory guidance, while local representatives ensure solutions are grounded in community needs and leverage cross-sector partnerships. Coordinated involvement ensures smoother implementation, resource leveraging, and shared accountability.

• Funders and philanthropic organizations: Given the in-flux nature of national funding for digital inclusion, experts emphasize the importance of collaborating with non-government funders who can provide essential capital to launch, sustain, and scale programs. Ideally, these organizations are also engaged as strategic partners, offering flexibility, insights, and connections beyond financial support. When aligned with community goals, philanthropy can help bridge funding gaps and pilot innovative approaches.

• Prioritizing a holistic approach: Expanding digital access and skills should be recognized as a universal community priority and shared public good, not a niche issue affecting only certain populations. While some individuals—such as low-income households, older adults, or undocumented residents—face heightened risks related to privacy, security, and access, digital vulnerabilities exist at a systemic level. Investing in broad digital competency benefits the entire community, improving resilience, security, and economic opportunity. Framing programs as community-wide investments—not just safety nets—can build broader political support and help decision-makers understand that well-designed solutions serve everyone, not just the most disadvantaged.

• Use accessible messaging to strengthen engagement: To build trust and increase participation, digital inclusion initiatives must be communicated in clear, accessible, and consistent ways. Many residents—especially those who have experienced exclusion or harm—may be skeptical of government or corporate programs. Transparent outreach can counter this mistrust. One effective approach is to pair public education campaigns, such as helping residents understand their internet bills, with engaging touchpoints like public Wi-Fi splash pages that highlight local resources or offer short skill-building activities. Beyond targeted outreach, community-wide awareness efforts can also foster civic pride and strengthen trust through social and neighborhood networks that might otherwise be hard to reach. Clear messaging builds credibility and empowers individuals to make informed choices.

• Emphasize user experience: Digital inclusion programs should prioritize robust, user-centered support to ensure participants can access and benefit from services with confidence. This includes investing in trained customer service representatives who can respond to questions in real time, and technicians who can rapidly install routers and troubleshoot connectivity issues. Programs should also offer multilingual and culturally competent support, along with walk-in help desks, hotlines, or on-site tech support hours. Paired with digital navigator programs and accessibility for users with disabilities, this comprehensive approach ensures no participant is left behind.

• Conduct continuous evaluation and adapt based on impact: Effective implementation includes an ongoing commitment to measuring outcomes and learning from the results. Engage academic or research partners to evaluate both the reach of services—such as uptake of subsidized broadband, device distribution, and enrollment in digital skills programs—and the broader impact on quality of life, including improved healthcare access, educational opportunities, and job attainment. Programs should track diverse, community-relevant indicators and use participant feedback to refine and improve offerings over time. Recommended tracking frequency includes monitoring broadband adoption monthly and digital literacy progress every 3–6 months.

Infrastructure and Access Metrics

• Broadband Map data: Federal and state broadband maps identify whether specific neighborhoods meet the definition of a “served area,” usually based on minimum upload and download speeds. Tracking whether an initiative expands the number of “served” areas provides an important system-level measure of infrastructure improvement and helps confirm that investments are reducing geographic disparities in access.

• Number of providers and internet speeds: Monitoring the number of internet service providers and the quality of plans available indicates whether competition is increasing and service is improving, particularly over a 12–18 month period.

• Broadband uptake rates: Ongoing tracking of enrollment trends and the number of households newly connected provides insight into reach and growth. Counting households that report savings from reduced-cost internet plans also demonstrates the financial impact of the initiative.

• Local speed tests: Community-led speed tests can help identify underserved areas and track improvements, providing ground-level validation of official broadband data. They can also reveal when slower speeds stem from hardware or equipment issues, such as router placement or outdated devices, rather than service availability, helping programs target technical assistance more effectively.

Device and Digital Skills Metrics

• Device distribution: Tracking the number of devices provided to residents demonstrates reach and investment in ensuring all residents have access.

• Digital navigation services delivered: Recording the instances of one-on-one or group-based digital support shows how often residents are receiving direct help.

• Digital literacy training participation: Monitoring attendance, completion rates, and participation by skill level (beginner, intermediate, advanced) allows for a nuanced view of community learning needs and progress. Including both objective skill assessments, especially those linked to workforce outcomes, and participants’ self-reported improvements in confidence, comfort, and perceived skill gains provides a fuller picture of learning impact. These self-measurements also highlight initial barriers such as fear or low self-confidence and help inform the design of future training.

• Certifications earned: Capturing the number of participants who achieve recognized digital skills certifications provides tangible evidence of skill acquisition and workforce readiness.

Economic and Social Impact Metrics

• Employment and wage outcomes: Tracking how many participants secure jobs after digital skills training, along with changes in their wages over time, demonstrates both immediate economic benefit and longer-term mobility.

• Internet connection rates: Monitoring the percentage of households with reliable internet access shows overall reach of broadband adoption.

• Access to vital services: Collecting participant-reported improvements in areas such as healthcare, telehealth, or social services captures broader social impact.

Resident voice and experience: Surveys or interviews that document residents’ own descriptions of how digital access and skills have improved their lives ensure that community perspectives remain central to evaluation.